Organizations: Fudan University · Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences · Multimedia Laboratory, The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology · INSAIT, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Generative Image Restoration (GIR) has achieved impressive perceptual realism, but how far have its practical capabilities truly advanced compared with previous methods? To answer this, we present a large-scale study grounded in a new multi-dimensional evaluation pipeline that assesses models on detail, sharpness, semantic correctness, and overall quality. Our analysis covers diverse architectures, including diffusion-based, GAN-based, PSNR-oriented, and general-purpose generation models, revealing critical performance disparities. Furthermore, our analysis uncovers a key evolution in failure modes that signifies a paradigm shift for the perception-oriented low-level vision field. The central challenge is evolving from the previous problem of detail scarcity (under-generation) to the new frontier of detail quality and semantic control (preventing over-generation). We also leverage our benchmark to train a new IQA model that better aligns with human perceptual judgments. Ultimately, this work provides a systematic study of modern generative image restoration models, offering crucial insights that redefine our understanding of their true state and chart a course for future development.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Distribution of annotated total scores across semantic scene groups. The horizontal width of each box indicates the percentage of samples within each score interval. The light gray region indicates low overall scores, representing generally unacceptable results.
Figure 3: Detail and sharpness score distributions across semantic scenes. The width of each box corresponds to the percentage of samples. The red line indicates the balance point; scores above it ( Over ↑ ) denote over-generation, and scores below it ( Less ↓ ) denote under-generation.
Model
Architecture
Model
Architecture
HYPIR [ 6 ]
Diffusion-based
S3Diff [ 85 ]
Diffusion-based
SUPIR [ 5 ]
Diffusion-based
TSD-SR [ 86 ]
Diffusion-based
PiSA-SR [ 31 ]
Diffusion-based
ResShift [ 29 ]
Diffusion-based
SeeSR [ 32 ]
Diffusion-based
FLUX [ 87 ]
Generation
OSEDiff [ 33 ]
Diffusion-based
Nano Banana [ 88 ]
Generation
CCSR [ 89 ]
Diffusion-based
BSRGAN [ 25 ]
GAN-based
Table 1: Restoration or generation models used in the benchmark.
Dataset
# Images
# IR Model
# GIR Models
Multi. Aspect
SRIQA-Bench [ 9 ]
1.1K
10
8
✗
ISRGen-QA [ 8 ]
0.72K
15
10
✗
Ours
7K
20
18
✓
Table 2: Comparison of existing datasets for GIR assessment.
Figure 4: Illustration of our annotation criteria. The rows (top to bottom) indicate: Detail (under-generated [-2] to over-generated [+2]), Sharpness (blurred [-2] to over-sharpened [+2]), and Semantic correctness (severe failure [0] to fully consistent [4]).
Figure 5: Distribution of semantic consistency scores across scenes. Box widths represent the sample percentage at each score. The light gray region marks unacceptable results.
Figure 6: Common failure modes in hard cases: distorted faces in crowd scenes (top), structural errors in hands/feet (middle), and illegible characters in text (bottom).
Figure 7: Diffusion models exhibit a dual tendency in detail generation: sometimes under-generating textures, leading to overly smooth results (top row), and at other times over-generating, creating implausible or redundant details (middle and bottom rows)
Figure 8: Examples illustrating over-generation, semantic infidelity, and degradation unremovement in generation models: more whiskers and railings are generated (first), the geometry of the face is not restored, and the position of the shoes is completely changed (second and third), and artifacts and noise are not eliminated (last).
Figure 9: Examples of hard degradations ( motion blur , old film ).
Figure 10: Averaged overall scores of different model families across various degradation types.
Table 3: Diffusion-based models’ parameter sensitivity. Mean scores show that the optimal configuration is scene- and degradation-dependent.
Figure 11: Effect of parameter configurations on restoration behavior in diffusion-based models (HYPIR as an example).
NIQE
PI
MANIQA
MUSIQ
CLIP-IQA
DeQA-Score
Ours
SRCC
0.164
0.178
0.361
0.376
0.389
0.409
0.662
PLCC
0.206
0.230
0.391
0.427
0.420
0.464
0.677
Table 4: Performance comparison of existing IQA methods and our trained IQA model on our dataset.
Appendix figures & tables22 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 12: Distribution of annotated overall scores across semantic scene groups. The horizontal width of each box indicates the percentage of samples within each score interval. The light gray region indicates low overall scores, representing generally unacceptable results.
Model
Config
Configurations
ID
HYPIR
1
sharpness:800, noise:600
2
sharpness:4000, noise:200
3
sharpness:4000, noise:600
PiSA-SR
1
lambda_pix:1.0, lambda_sem:0.3
2
lambda_pix:2.0, lambda_sem:1.0
Appendix
Table 6: Configurations used in our parameter sensitivity analysis. All other parameters remain at their official defaults.
Model
Config
SmallFace
Crowd
Vehicles
Street
Aerial
Hands/
Complex
Text
Digital
OP
ID
Face
View
View
Feet
Texture
Zoom
(Color)
HYPIR
1
2.83
2.00
3.00
2.71
2.90
2.68
2.58
2.50
2.17
2.23
2
2.94
2.50
3.10
2.86
2.90
3.05
2.75
2.61
2.61
2.43
3
2.61
2.10
3.20
2.71
2.70
2.73
2.58
2.50
2.26
2.14
PiSA-SR
1
1.78
1.60
2.30
2.00
1.80
2.64
2.17
2.22
2.15
1.67
2
1.67
1.30
2.40
2.21
1.70
2.68
2.00
2.11
2.04
1.94
Appendix
Table 7: Average overall scores of different parameter configurations across semantic categories. Bold numbers indicate the best-performing configuration within each model for a given category
Model
Avgerage Overall Score ↑
Avgerage Rank ↓
HYPIR
2.775
3.127
PiSA-SR
2.508
5.547
TSD-SR
2.467
7.487
DiffBIR
2.428
5.181
PASD
2.38
6.382
OSEDiff
2.377
6.173
Appendix
Table 8: Overall performance ranking of all evaluated restoration models. We report each model’s mean overall quality score across the full dataset and its average per-image ranking position.
Test set
NIQE
MANIQA
MUSIQ
CLIP-IQA
DeQA-Score
Ours
LIVEW
0.81/0.77
0.85/0.83
0.79/0.83
0.83 / 0.81
0.89 / 0.88
0.83 / 0.81
AGIQA
0.72/0.65
0.72/0.64
0.72/0.63
0.74/0.69
0.81 / 0.73
0.81 / 0.76
CSIQ
0.70/0.65
0.62/0.63
0.77/0.71
0.77/0.72
0.79 / 0.74
0.86 / 0.83
Appendix
Table 9: Performance comparison of our proposed method against popular IQA models on three external datasets. Results are reported in terms of SRCC/PLCC. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined respectively.
Figure 13: More low-quality examples of different semantic categories. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 14: More low-quality examples of different semantic categories. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 15: More visual examples of different degradation categories. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 16: More visual examples of different degradation categories. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 17: Results of different prompts used in generation models. Zoom in for a better view. Prompt 1: Perform high-quality image restoration and super-resolution in this image: enhance clarity, remove noise and scratches, reduce blur, and sharpen fine details—while preserving a natural, realistic appearance without over-processing or artificial artifacts. Prompt 2: Restore this image with enhanced clarity and sharpness. Reduce noise, fix compression artifacts, and improve detail while strictly preserving the original content, style, and semantics. Prompt 3: Clean and restore the image by removing artifacts, noise, and blur. Maintain full fidelity to the original composition and avoid creating new visual elements. Prompt 4: Improve this image’s perceptual quality: refine edges, correct degradation, and enhance fine details. Do not alter identity, expression, or any semantic attributes.
Figure 18: Results of different prompts used in generation models. Zoom in for a better view. Prompt 1: Perform high-quality image restoration and super-resolution in this image: enhance clarity, remove noise and scratches, reduce blur, and sharpen fine details—while preserving a natural, realistic appearance without over-processing or artificial artifacts. Prompt 2: Restore this image with enhanced clarity and sharpness. Reduce noise, fix compression artifacts, and improve detail while strictly preserving the original content, style, and semantics. Prompt 3: Clean and restore the image by removing artifacts, noise, and blur. Maintain full fidelity to the original composition and avoid creating new visual elements. Prompt 4: Improve this image’s perceptual quality: refine edges, correct degradation, and enhance fine details. Do not alter identity, expression, or any semantic attributes.
Figure 19: Distribution of different scores across various semantic scene groups. The horizontal width of each box indicates the percentage of samples within each score interval. The red line indicates the balance point; scores above it ( Over ↑ ) denote over-generation, and scores below it ( Less ↓ ) denote under-generation. The light gray region indicates low overall scores, representing generally unacceptable results.
Figure 20: Distribution of different scores across various degradation types. The horizontal width of each box indicates the percentage of samples within each score interval. The light gray region indicates low overall scores, representing generally unacceptable results. The red line indicates the balance point; scores above it ( Over ↑ ) denote over-generation, and scores below it ( Less ↓ ) denote under-generation.
Figure 21: Effect of parameter configurations on restoration behavior in diffusion-based models. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 22: Effect of parameter configurations on restoration behavior in diffusion-based models. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 23: Qualitative analysis of image quality assessment methods. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 24: Qualitative analysis of image quality assessment methods. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 25: Qualitative analysis of image quality assessment methods. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 26: Failure cases of semantic errors. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 27: Failure cases of semantic errors. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 28: Failure cases of over-generation. Zoom in for a better view.
Figure 29: Failure cases of hard degradations. Zoom in for a better view.
Real-world image restoration (IR) is bottlenecked by the scarcity of high-quality paired training data. Synthetic datasets are abundant but often fail to model real-world degradations, while real-world paired datasets are expensive and difficult to capture. As a result, IR models trained on these datasets show limited generalization in real-world scenarios. In this work, we propose Generative Ground Truth (GGT) by using generative multimodal foundation models (MFMs) to produce high-quality (HQ) targets from real-world low-quality (LQ) images. We first conduct a systematic evaluation of nine state-of-the-art MFMs, including Nano-Banana-2 and GPT-Image-2, on images of various scenes and degradation types. The results demonstrate that Nano-Banana-2 with VLM-based adaptive prompting shows the highest capability to synthesize perceptually realistic and content-faithful HQ targets, which can serve as the GGT for the LQ input. We then employ Nano-Banana-2 to build a GGT synthesis pipeline, which involves multi-stage quality control to ensure data reliability, and construct GGT-100K, an LQ-HQ paired dataset comprising 103,707 training pairs and covering diverse scenes and complex real-world degradations. A test set of 500 image pairs is also established. Extensive experiments show that GGT-100K consistently improves the real-world generalization of a wide range of IR models, with particularly strong benefits for finetuning generative models for IR tasks. Our results suggest that MFMs can serve as practical tools for restoration-oriented data generation, and GGT-100K is a useful resource to expand the generalization boundaries of real-world IR models.
Xiangtao Kong, Jixin Zhao, Lingchen Sun +2
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · OPPO Research Institute
Recent advances in generative AI raise the question of whether general-purpose image editing models can serve as unified solutions for image restoration. We conduct a systematic evaluation of Nano Banana 2 across diverse scenes and degradations. Our results show that prompt design is critical, with concise prompts and explicit fidelity constraints achieving a better balance between reconstruction and perceptual quality. Nano Banana 2 achieves competitive full-reference performance and is consistently preferred in user studies, while showing strong generalization in challenging scenarios. However, we observe a gap between perceptual quality and restoration fidelity, as the model tends to produce visually rich results with over-enhanced details and inconsistencies. This issue is not well captured by existing IQA metrics or user studies. Overall, general-purpose models show promise as unified IR solvers from a perceptual perspective, but require improved controllability and fidelity-aware evaluation. Further comparisons and detailed analyses are available in our project repository: https://github.com/yxyuanxiao/NanoBanana2TestOnIR.
Weixiong Sun, Xiang Yin, Chao Dong
Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology · Fudan University · Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Large-scale generative models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across image generation and editing tasks. However, their performance in low-level vision tasks, which require pixel-wise control, remains insufficiently studied. To address this gap, we introduce LL-Bench, a comprehensive Benchmark for evaluating the capabilities of large-scale generative models on Low-Level vision tasks. The benchmark comprises 2,469 real-world degraded images covering 16 low-level degradation tasks, and 28,919 restored images produced by 10 state-of-the-art large-scale generative models and 21 conventional restoration models, which are annotated with 152,020 expert-level pairwise human preferences and 28,334 quality scores. Built upon LL-Bench, we present a systematic diagnosis that reveals the performance boundaries and unique failure modes of large-scale generative models across diverse low-level vision tasks, compared with conventional representative restoration approaches. Moreover, we investigate the effectiveness of current quality evaluation metrics on LL-Bench, which exhibit significant discrepancy with human ratings. To better align restored-image quality assessment with human preferences, we further propose LL-Score, an MLLM-based evaluator that captures both restoration quality and hallucination existence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LL-score not only outperforms existing image quality assessment metrics, but also serves as a promising reward model for training generative models on low-level vision tasks.