GSNR: Graph Smooth Null-Space Representation for Inverse Problems

Romario Gualdrón-Hurtado; Roman Jacome; Rafael S. Suarez; Henry Arguello

cs.CVFeb 23, 2026

GSNR: Graph Smooth Null-Space Representation for Inverse Problems

Authors: Romario Gualdrón-Hurtado, Roman Jacome, Rafael S. Suarez, Henry Arguello

Organizations: Universidad Industrial de Santander, Colombia, 680002

Abstract

Inverse problems in imaging are ill-posed, leading to infinitely many solutions consistent with the measurements due to the non-trivial null-space of the sensing matrix. Common image priors promote solutions on the general image manifold, such as sparsity, smoothness, or score function. However, as these priors do not constrain the null-space component, they can bias the reconstruction. Thus, we aim to incorporate meaningful null-space information in the reconstruction framework. Inspired by smooth image representation on graphs, we propose Graph-Smooth Null-Space Representation (GSNR), a mechanism that imposes structure only into the invisible component. Particularly, given a graph Laplacian, we construct a null-restricted Laplacian that encodes similarity between neighboring pixels in the null-space signal, and we design a low-dimensional projection matrix from the $p$ -smoothest spectral graph modes (lowest graph frequencies). This approach has strong theoretical and practical implications: i) improved convergence via a null-only graph regularizer, ii) better coverage, how much null-space variance is captured by $p$ modes, and iii) high predictability, how well these modes can be inferred from the measurements. GSNR is incorporated into well-known inverse problem solvers, e.g., PnP, DIP, and diffusion solvers, in four scenarios: image deblurring, compressed sensing, demosaicing, and image super-resolution, providing consistent improvement of up to 4.3 dB over baseline formulations and up to 1 dB compared with end-to-end learned models in terms of PSNR.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: For image SR task with $SRF=4,n=3\cdot 128^{2}$ , we show ground-truth, adjoint reconstruction, NS projection, projection onto graph-smooth NS with $\mathbf{L}_{4nn}$ and $\mathbf{L}_{8nn}$ .

Figure 2: Coverage and spectral analysis for SR task. (a) $\mathbf{x^{\ast}}=\mathbf{H}^{\top}\mathbf{Hx^{\ast}+S}^{\top}\mathbf{Sx^{\ast}}$ for $\mathbf{S}$ given by ( 6 ) using $\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{I}$ (orange), $\mathbf{L=L}_{4nn}$ (green) and $\mathbf{L=L}_{8nn}$ (blue) for different values of $p$ . (b) RNSD representation error, varying $p$ . (c) Variation of $\mathbf{T}$ normalized eigenvalues with respect to their index.

Figure 3: Per-mode predictability for each case when $\mathbf{L}\in\{\mathbf{I},\mathbf{L}_{8nn},\mathbf{L}_{4nn}\}$ for SR case with $SRF=4$ with $n=64^{2}$ .

Figure 4: a) Coverage and b) Predictability vs.

p

for CS with CIFAR-10 dataset. In this case,

m/n=0.1

and

p=1\cdots n-m

Figure 5: Results of DM-based solvers (DPS [ 8 ] & DiffPIR [ 55 ] ) for Baseline, NPN [ 17 ] , and GSNR with $\mathbf{L_{4nn}}$ and $\mathbf{L_{8nn}}$ . Here, $p=0.1n$ .

Method	Task
Method	Super-Resolution	Demosaicing
PnP [ 20 ]	27.37	39.35
NPN [ 17 ]	29.21	39.77
DDN-Cascade [ 7 ]	28.92	37.83
DDN-Independent [ 7 ]	28.81	38.92
DNSN [ 41 ]	26.52	39.33

Table 1: Quantitative comparison on the super-resolution and demosaicing tasks (higher is better) using the CelebA test set. For each task, the best result and second-best results.

Method	$\gamma_{\mathrm{g}}$	Places365		CelebA
Method	$\gamma_{\mathrm{g}}$	Lip-DnCNN	Wavelet	Lip-DnCNN	Wavelet
Baseline (PGD-PnP)	–	31.58	30.78	35.26	33.64
NPN [ 17 ]	–	33.22	33.17	37.86	37.68
GSNR w. $\mathbf{L}_{8\text{nn}}$	✘	33.60	33.59	38.18	37.99
GSNR w. $\mathbf{L}_{8\text{nn}}$	✓	33.60	33.59	38.18	37.99

Table 2: Final PSNR (dB) for deblurring (

\sigma_{k}=1

) with

n=64^{2}\cdot 3

and

p=0.8\cdot n

. We report results on Places365 [ 11 ] and CelebA [ 25 ] test sets using Lip-DnCNN [ 40 ] and a wavelet denoiser [ 12 ] . For each column, best and second-best results.

Figure 6: Deblurring convergence curves for PnP-PGD baseline using Lip-DnCNN and GSNR variants with

\mathbf{L}_{8nn}

with and without the null-restricted Laplacian regularization.

Figure 7: Results of PnP, NPN, and GSNR varying $\mathbf{L}$ and denoisers. Best results for each denoiser are in bold. Here, $p=0.1n$ .

Appendix figures & tables23 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Figure 8: SR with different graph Laplacians. Left: ground truth $\mathbf{x}^{\ast}$ , its null component $\mathbf{P}_{n}\mathbf{x}^{\ast}$ , and graph-smoothed null responses $\mathbf{P}_{n}\mathbf{L}_{\mathrm{sym}}\mathbf{P}_{n}\mathbf{x}^{\ast}$ and $\mathbf{P}_{n}\mathbf{L}_{\mathrm{rw}}\mathbf{P}_{n}\mathbf{x}^{\ast}$ . Right: PSNR vs. iteration for GSNR-PnP with $\mathbf{L}\in\{\mathbf{L}_{\mathrm{sym}},\mathbf{L}_{\mathrm{rw}},\mathbf{I}\}$ , and the PnP baseline.

Figure 9: (a) Variation of

\mathbf{T}

normalized eigenvalues for

\mathbf{L}_{\theta}

with respect to their index in CS. (b) Coverage of

\mathbf{S}

with

\mathbf{L}_{\theta}

in CS.

	$\displaystyle\mathbf{x}_{i}\leftarrow\mathbf{x}_{i-1}-\alpha$	$\displaystyle\left(\mathbf{H}^{\top}(\mathbf{Hx}_{i-1}-\mathbf{y})+{\color[rgb]{0,0.6,0}\gamma\mathbf{S}^{\top}(\mathbf{Sx}_{i-1}-\mathrm{G}^{*}(\mathbf{y}))}\right.$
		$\displaystyle\left.+{\color[rgb]{0,0,1}\gamma_{g}\mathbf{Tx}_{i-1}}\right)$

Appendix

Algorithm 2 GSNR PnP-PGD with null-space and graph regularization

Figure 10: PnP variant with null-only projector regularizer: illustrative convergence.

Figure 12: Effect of the null-only graph regularizer on GSNR-PnP convergence for demosaicing. We plot PSNR versus iteration for GSNR-PnP with different Laplacians (

\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{I}

\mathbf{L}_{4\mathrm{nn}}

\mathbf{L}_{8\mathrm{nn}}

) and with the graph-regularization weight

\gamma_{\mathrm{g}}

either enabled or disabled, along with the standard PnP baseline (dashed).

Figure 13: Effect of the null-only graph regularizer on GSNR-PnP convergence for super-resolution. We plot PSNR versus iteration for GSNR-PnP with different Laplacians (

\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{I}

\mathbf{L}_{4\mathrm{nn}}

\mathbf{L}_{8\mathrm{nn}}

) and with the graph-regularization weight

\gamma_{\mathrm{g}}

either enabled or disabled, along with the standard PnP baseline (dashed).

Figure 16: Spectral coverage curves

C(p)

for super-resolution, comparing different Laplacian choices in the GSNR construction: grid

\mathbf{L}_{4\mathrm{nn}}

, grid

\mathbf{L}_{8\mathrm{nn}}

, random-walk normalized

\mathbf{L}_{\mathrm{rw}}

, symmetric normalized

\mathbf{L}_{\mathrm{sym}}

, and the geometry-free baseline

\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{I}

. Coverage

C(p)

is the fraction of null-space variance captured by the first

p

graph-smooth modes.

Figure 17: Results using latent-space diffusion models for SR.

Figure 18: Convergence comparison with PnP, NPN, and GSNR for CS.

Parameter	Value
$\gamma_{\mathrm{g}}$	0.01
$\gamma$	0.1
$\eta$	0.01
$\alpha$	$\frac{1.0}{\\|\mathbf{H}\\|}$
$K$ (Max iterations)	3000

Appendix

Table 3: Experimental settings for GSNR PGD-PnP in demosacing.

Method	$\gamma_{\mathrm{g}}$	Lip-DnCNN [ 40 ]	DRUNet [ 52 ]
Baseline	–	39.35	27.91
NPN [ 17 ]	✘	39.77	30.12
GSNR w. $\mathbf{L}_{4nn}$	✘	39.79	30.14
GSNR w. $\mathbf{L}_{4nn}$	✓	39.89	30.13
GSNR w. $\mathbf{L}_{8nn}$	✘	39.77	30.27
GSNR w. $\mathbf{L}_{8nn}$	✓	39.88	30.27

Appendix

Table 4: Final PSNR (dB) comparison across graph variants and topologies for demosaicing with

n=64^{2}

and

p=0.5\cdot 3\cdot n

Figure 19: Evaluation of GSNR-PnP on a non-optical imaging example (SAR-like data). Top row: ground-truth image $\mathbf{x}^{\ast}$ , back-projection $\mathbf{H}^{\top}\mathbf{y}$ , baseline PnP reconstruction, and GSNR-PnP with $\mathbf{L}_{4\mathrm{nn}}$ and $\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{I}$ , with PSNR values overlaid. Bottom: PSNR as a function of iteration for GSNR-PnP with $\mathbf{L}_{4\mathrm{nn}}$ , GSNR-PnP with $\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{I}$ , and the PnP baseline.

Figure 20: Super-resolution results with GSNR-PnP for different graph Laplacians and denoisers. Left: PSNR versus iteration for GSNR-PnP with $\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{I}$ , $\mathbf{L}_{4\mathrm{nn}}$ , $\mathbf{L}_{8\mathrm{nn}}$ , and the PnP, using (from left to right) DnCNN, DRUNET, and a wavelet denoiser. Right: corresponding reconstructions for a representative face image, with the ground truth at the top-left and PSNR values overlaid on each result.

Figure 21: Super-resolution on CelebA (20 images) with Deep Image Prior (DIP). We plot PSNR versus iteration for the standard DIP baseline (red) and the proposed GSNR-DIP variants using different Laplacians:

\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{I}

\mathbf{L}_{4\mathrm{nn}}

, and

\mathbf{L}_{8\mathrm{nn}}

Parameter	Lip-DnCNN	Wavelet
$\gamma_{\mathrm{g}}$	0.1	0.1
$\gamma$	0.1	0.1
$\eta$	0.0001	0.001
$\alpha$	$\frac{1.5}{\\|\mathbf{H}\\|}$	$\frac{1.5}{\\|\mathbf{H}\\|}$
$K$ (Max iterations)	800	800

Appendix

Table 5: Experimental settings for GSNR PnP-PGD in deblurring.

Figure 22: Deblurring visual results comparing PGD-PnP, GSNR with $\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{I}$ (NPN), and GSNR with $\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{L}_{8nn}$ across two datasets and two denoisers. Best results for each denoiser are in bold . Here, $p=0.8$ .

Metric / Resolution	$128^{2}$	$256^{2}$	$512^{2}$
Offline EVD computation (s)	102	1315	22310
Offline RAM (GiB)	0.68	10.88	174.09
PnP runtime (Wavelet) (s)	1.09	1.42	1.96

Appendix

Table 6: GSNR’s computational cost for SR: offline and online (PnP, one image, 1000 iters).

	Lip-DnCNN	Wavelet
Baseline (PnP-PGD)	31.23	30.39
NPN [ 17 ]	33.05	32.90
GSNR ( $\mathbf{L}_{8\text{nn}}$ )	33.69	33.65

Appendix

Table 7: Final PSNR on DIV2K for deblurring (

\mathrm{G}

trained on Places365).

Figure 23: PSNR with

\mathrm{G}

ablation in Places for the deblurring task.

Figure 24: PSNR in deblurring with inexact forward operator.

Inverse Problems

Inverse problems infer hidden causes, parameters, or signals from indirect, noisy measurements using physical models, priors, and statistical methods.

See all 243 papers

Aug 13, 2026

Difference-of-Convex Regularization for Graph Learning by Differentiable Programming

Laplacian-regularized minimization is fundamental in signal processing and machine learning, but explicit construction of the dense graph Laplacian pseudoinverse can be computationally expensive. To address this issue, we consider the setting where the graph Laplacian is given and propose a Difference-of-Convex Regularizer (DCR) graph learning framework that learns a reusable approximation of the pseudoinverse action through regularized Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) and shrinkage-regularized Convex--Concave Procedure (CCCP) iterations. For Laplacian-Regularized Nonnegative Least Squares (LR-NNLS), dual and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) analysis motivates separating graph-dependent pseudoinverse learning from instance-specific optimization. The learned pseudoinverse is embedded into a differentiable primal optimization procedure as a graph-aware preconditioner for nonnegative reconstruction and can be reused across LR-NNLS instances sharing the same graph. We establish stability and fixed-point existence guarantees for the proposed pseudoinverse-learning iteration. Experiments across different graph topologies and scales demonstrate near-reference accuracy, competitive time-to-moderate-accuracy behavior, and effective cross-instance reuse across independently generated problem instances sharing the same graph.

Liping Tao, Chee Wei Tan

College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798

Topic pending

Ask PDF

Jun 30, 2026

MG-SpaIR: Multi-grade Sparse-guided Implicit Representation for Training-Data-Free Image Restoration

MG-SpaIR is a training-data-free framework for restoring a clean image from a single observation corrupted by a mixture of blur, downsampling, noise, and missing pixels. Building on implicit neural representations (INRs), we introduce a multi-grade coarse-to-fine residual hierarchy that progressively refines the reconstruction across resolution grades, improving representational fidelity and mitigating spectral limitations. To stabilize reconstruction optimization and suppress INR-induced artifacts, we further propose an explicit sparse proximal regularization (e.g.,

\ell_0

-type) applied directly in the high-resolution image domain, which discourages spurious high-frequency patterns while preserving sharp structures. The resulting optimization is solved efficiently via a multi-grade proximal alternating scheme, and we establish convergence guarantees for the associated updates under standard regularity conditions. Experiments on mixed-degradation benchmarks demonstrate that MG-SpaIR consistently outperforms strong training-data-free baselines such as Deep Image Prior, providing a stable, interpretable, and data-efficient alternative to conventional learning-based restoration methods.

Jianmin Liao, Lei Huang, Ronglong Fang +3

Department of Mathematics, Syracuse University, 215 Carnegie Building, Syracuse, 13210, NY, USA. · Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Old Dominion University, 2300 Engineering & Computational Sciences Building, Norfolk, 23529, VA, USA. · Department of Medical Physical, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1250 First Avenue, New York, 10065, NY, USA. +1

Implicit Neural Representations All-in-One Image Restoration Image Restoration

Ask PDF

Sep 20, 2026

Fast Graph Laplacian Estimation using Effective Resistance

Inferring network topology from noisy node observations is a central problem in graph signal processing. In this paper, we consider Laplacian-constrained graph estimation for Gaussian Markov random fields, focusing on the underdetermined regime in which the number of samples is smaller than the number of graph nodes. Existing approaches often formulate the problem as a sparsity-regularized maximum-likelihood estimation problem. While effective, such methods typically require iterative optimization and are often computationally demanding, particularly under Laplacian constraints. Instead, we propose a non-iterative estimator of graph Laplacians that uses effective resistance for regularization, and evaluate the method using a simple sparsification procedure. Experiments show that with some trade-off in edge and weight recovery on the considered dataset, computational cost for moderately sized graphs can be substantially reduced.

Christoffer Kjellson, Claudio Altafini, Emma Tegling

Department of Automatic Control, Lund University · ELLIIT Strategic Research Area · Division of Automatic Control, Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping University

Graph Structure Learning Probabilistic Graphical Models

Ask PDF

Abstract

Inverse Problems

Explore similar work

Difference-of-Convex Regularization for Graph Learning by Differentiable Programming

MG-SpaIR: Multi-grade Sparse-guided Implicit Representation for Training-Data-Free Image Restoration

Fast Graph Laplacian Estimation using Effective Resistance