Recent Super-Resolution~(SR) methods mainly adopt Transformers for their strong long-range modeling capability and exceptional representational capacity. However, most SR Transformers rely heavily on relative positional bias~(RPB), which prevents them from leveraging hardware-efficient attention kernels such as FlashAttention. This limitation imposes a prohibitive computational burden during both training and inference, severely restricting attempts to scale SR Transformers by enlarging the training patch size or the self-attention window. Consequently, unlike other domains that actively exploit the inherent scalability of Transformers, SR Transformers remain heavily focused on effectively utilizing limited receptive fields. In this paper, we propose Rank-factorized Implicit Neural Bias~(RIB), an alternative to RPB that enables FlashAttention in SR Transformers. Specifically, RIB approximates positional bias using low-rank implicit neural representations and concatenates them with pixel content tokens in a channel-wise manner, turning the element-wise bias addition in attention score computation into a dot-product operation. Further, we introduce a convolutional local attention and a cyclic window strategy to fully leverage the advantages of long-range interactions enabled by RIB and FlashAttention. We enlarge the window size up to \textbf{96×96} while jointly scaling the training patch size and the dataset size, maximizing the benefits of Transformers in the SR task. As a result, our network achieves 35.63,dB PSNR on Urban100×2, while reducing training and inference time by \textbf{2.1×} and \textbf{2.9×}, respectively, compared to the RPB-based SR Transformer~(PFT).
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of our contributions. By replacing relative positional bias (RPB) with the proposed Rank-factorized Implicit Neural Bias (RIB), we enable FlashAttention in SR Transformers. The resulting efficiency allows us to scale the attention window, training patch size, and training data, leading to improved performance with significantly lower training and inference costs.
Figure 2: Preliminaries and motivation. (a) Overview of the general SR architecture. (b) Toy illustration of how RoPE affects repeated-pattern attention. We construct a 32 × 32 feature map by repeatedly tiling two orthogonal 32-dimensional content vectors and set Q=K . Without RoPE, tokens with the same repeated content maintain high mutual attention regardless of their spatial offset, yielding a checkerboard pattern. With RoPE, however, the dot product between repeated content vectors is modulated by relative-position-dependent phases. Therefore, the same repeated patterns can receive different attention probabilities depending only on their offset, as highlighted by the red arrow.
Table 1: Comparison of training and inference costs across SR methods. Training costs are measured using the batch size of 10, which is the largest batch size that does not cause an OOM in all cases. Inference costs are measured while reconstructing a 1280 × 720 image at scale × 2. All statistics are measured using an H200 GPU at FP32 precision. The best result is bolded. We leverage FlashAttention3 [ 50 ] for the hardware-efficient acceleration kernel. For more comparisons across various GPUs and FlashAttention implementations, please refer to the appendix.
Method
Venue
scale
#params
Set5
Set14
BSD100
Urban100
Manga109
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
SwinIR [ 32 ]
ICCVW‘21
×2
11.8
38.42/0.9623
34.46/0.9250
32.53/0.9041
33.81/0.9427
39.92/0.9797
ESC † [ 30 ]
ICCV‘25
12.5
38.59/0.9630
34.70/0.9259
32.61/0.9052
34.49/0.9466
40.38/0.9809
CAT-A [ 8 ]
NeurIPS‘22
16.5
38.51/0.9626
34.78/0.9265
32.59/0.9047
34.26/0.9440
40.10/0.9805
ART [ 72 ]
ICLR‘23
16.4
38.56/0.9629
34.59/0.9267
32.58/0.9048
34.30/0.9452
40.24/0.9808
HAT [ 5 ]
CVPR‘23
20.6
38.63/0.9630
34.86/0.9274
32.62/0.9053
34.45/0.9466
40.26/0.9809
Table 2: Quantitative comparison (PSNR/SSIM) on benchmark datasets trained on DF2K datasets [ 1 , 60 ] . † denotes the method is trained using 96×96 patches. The best result is bolded.
Method
scale
#params
Set5
Set14
BSD100
Urban100
Manga109
DIV2K-val
LSDIR-val
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PFT [ 36 ]
×2
19.6
38.67/0.9633
35.11/0.9282
32.71/0.9062
35.24/0.9508
40.64/0.9817
37.17/0.9526
32.92/0.9321
MambaIRV2-L [ 21 ]
34.2
38.77/0.9636
35.20/0.9287
32.74 / 0.9065
35.20/0.9508
40.82/0.9820
37.16/0.9524
32.93/0.9321
SST-L
20.3
38.70/0.9635
35.06/0.9274
32.69/0.9058
35.35/0.9515
40.64/0.9817
37.21/0.9528
32.97/0.9325
SST-L+ †
20.3
38.78 / 0.9637
35.28 / 0.9288
32.73/0.9064
35.63 / 0.9530
40.86 / 0.9821
37.32 / 0.9535
33.12 / 0.9338
PFT [ 36 ]
×3
19.8
35.12/0.9335
31.45/0.8572
29.60/0.8188
31.08/0.8996
35.81/0.9567
33.41/0.9020
29.16/0.8578
Table 3: Quantitative comparison (PSNR/SSIM) on benchmark datasets trained on DFLIP datasets [ 1 , 60 , 31 , 42 ] . † denotes the method is trained using 96×96 patches. The best result is bolded.
Attention
Bias
Training
Inference
Urban100
Manga109
sec/step
memory
#params
latency
memory
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
Naive
RPB [ 35 ]
-
-
13.6M
11705.3ms
126181MB
- / -
- / -
FlexAttention [ 16 , 30 ]
RPB [ 35 ]
5.048
47.2GB
13.6M
2414.0ms
2487MB
34.91/0.9489
40.42/0.9812
FlashAttention3 [ 50 ]
CPE [ 10 ]
0.625
46.5GB
11.3M
537.3ms
2354MB
Not Converged
FlashAttention3 [ 50 ]
FlashBias [ 64 ]
0.473
47.3GB
46.7M
455.7ms
2825MB
Not Converged
FlashAttention3 [ 50 ]
RoPE-ViT [ 23 ]
0.489
47.9GB
11.3M
432.7ms
2915MB
34.71/0.9479
40.40/0.9811
Table 4: Training/inference costs and performance of attention/bias variants on SST + . Training and inference costs are measured as detailed in Table 1 .
Table 5: Ablation studies of proposed components in the SST.
Figure 4: Visualized positional score matrix ( Sp ) and relative positional bias table ( RΔ ) calculated from the second block of SST. We average the biases that correspond to the same 2D distance, since positional bias predicted by our RIB does not guarantee equivalence across the same relative offsets.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Overall illustration for SST architecture.
Methods
D
Blocks
Layers
Window Sizes
Heads
L
dh
R
ConvFFN Exp.
SST-light
48
5
6
[8, 16, 32, 16, 32, 64]
3
10
32
[16, 16, 16, 24, 24, 24]
1.5
SST-light+
48
5
6
[16, 32, 48, 32, 48, 96]
3
10
32
[16, 16, 16, 24, 24, 24]
1.5
SST
180
6
6
[16, 32, 64, 16, 32, 64]
6
10
32
[18, 18, 18, 34, 34, 34]
1.25
SST+
180
6
6
[16, 32, 48, 32, 48, 96]
6
10
32
[18, 18, 18, 34, 34, 34]
1.25
SST-L
192
8
6
[16, 32, 64, 16, 32, 64]
6
10
32
[16, 16, 16, 32, 32, 32]
2
SST-L+
192
8
6
[16, 32, 48, 32, 48, 96]
6
10
32
[16, 16, 16, 32, 32, 32]
2
Appendix
Table 6: Network implementation details.
Methods
TrainingPatch
Dataset
BatchSize
Iteration
Optimizer
LR
Schedule ( γ=0.5 )
Loss
SST-light
64 × 64
DIV2K
64
500000
AdamW
5e-4
[250000, 400000, 450000, 475000, 490000]
L1Loss
SST-light +
96 × 96
or DFLIP
SST
64 × 64
DF2K
32
SST +
96 × 96
SST-L
64 × 64
DF2K
SST-L +
96 × 96
or DFLIP
Appendix
Table 7: Training configuration across our networks for × 2 upscaling. For × 3 and × 4, we initialize from the weights of × 2 and × 3, respectively [ 28 ] , and halve the number of iterations, learning rate, and schedule.
Method
scale
#params
Set5
Set14
BSD100
Urban100
Manga109
DIV2K-val
LSDIR-val
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PFT [ 36 ]
×4
19.8
33.17/0.9071
29.50/0.8005
28.03/0.7537
28.71/0.8515
32.84/0.9323
31.38/0.8573
27.22/0.7950
↪ w/o crop
32.85/0.9066
28.90/0.8009
27.90/0.7542
28.61/0.8515
32.80/0.9324
31.36/0.8574
27.19/0.7953
↪Δ
-0.32 / -0.0005
-0.60 / +0.0004
-0.13 / +0.0005
-0.10 /+0.0000
-0.04 / +0.0001
-0.02 / +0.0001
-0.03 / +0.0003
MambaIRV2-L [ 21 ]
34.2
33.20/0.9073
29.57/0.8018
28.11/0.7556
28.75/0.8526
32.99/0.9334
31.40/0.8576
27.29/0.7967
↪ w/o crop
32.89/0.9070
28.94/0.8021
28.06/0.7563
28.67/0.8527
32.96/0.9336
31.39/0.8578
27.26/0.7970
Appendix
Table 8: Boundary crop sensitivity comparison on benchmark datasets trained on DFLIP datasets [ 1 , 60 , 31 , 42 ] . † denotes the method is trained using 96×96 patches. The best result is bolded.
Method
scale
#params
Set5
Set14
BSD100
Urban100
Manga109
DIV2K-val
LSDIR-val
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
PSNR/SSIM
MambaIRV2-L [ 21 ]
×2
34.2
38.77 / 0.9636
35.20/0.9287
32.74/ 0.9065
35.20/0.9508
40.82/0.9820
37.16/0.9524
32.93/0.9321
SST-L+
20.3
38.78/0.9637
35.28/0.9288
32.73/0.9064
35.63/0.9530
40.86/0.9821
37.32/0.9535
33.12/0.9338
SST-XL+
33.9
38.77 / 0.9636
35.40 / 0.9289
32.75 /0.9063
35.83 / 0.9540
41.01 / 0.9825
37.40 / 0.9539
33.24 / 0.9347
MambaIRV2-L [ 21 ]
×3
34.2
35.23/0.9341
31.56/ 0.8586
29.66/0.8195
31.13/0.9000
35.98/0.9574
33.43/0.9020
29.23/0.8586
SST-L+
20.7
35.33/0.9345
31.54/0.8576
29.64/0.8193
31.53/0.9046
36.12/0.9580
33.55/0.9037
29.33/0.8609
Appendix
Table 9: Quantitative comparison (PSNR/SSIM) on benchmark datasets trained on DFLIP datasets [ 1 , 60 , 31 , 42 ] . † denotes the method is trained using 96×96 patches. SST-L+ rows are shown in gray as reference results and are excluded from bolding. The best result among non-reference rows is bolded.
Attention
Training
Inference
sec/step
memory
latency
memory
FlashAttention2 [ 12 ]
0.556
47.1GB
503.7ms
2825MB
FlashAttention3 [ 50 ]
0.479
47.1GB
455.7ms
2825MB
FlashAttention4 [ 69 ]
0.488 §
48.1GB §
452.3ms
2819MB
Appendix
Table 10: Training and inference costs of attention variants on SST + . Statistics are measured as detailed in Table 1 . § indicates that additional zero padding was used because FlashAttention4 [ 69 ] currently supports backward computation only for channel dimensions that are multiples of 32.
Methods
Scale
RTX4090
A6000
H200
latency
memory
latency
memory
latency
memory
HAT
×2
1722.8ms
9047MB
3068.5ms
9047MB
709.7ms
9070MB
ATD
2665.8ms
6216MB
5064.8ms
6216MB
1266.8ms
6239MB
PFT
OOM
OOM
12990.1ms
28847MB
1920.8ms
28869MB
MambaIR
1570.8ms
6883MB
3349.4ms
7680MB
1043.8ms
7704MB
MambaIRV2
3373.6ms
5749MB
9814.8ms
5792MB
2308.8ms
5816MB
Appendix
Table 11: Latency and memory usage across GPUs. We use FlashAttention3 for an H200 GPU and FlashAttention2 for RTX4090 and A6000 GPUs. We report the measured median speed when restoring a 1280 × 720 image 10 times in FP32. Memory usage is measured using PyTorch’s max_memory_allocated function.
Method
Scale
Latency (ms)
Mem (MB)
#FLOPs (G)
#params (K)
PSNR / SSIM
Set5
Set14
B100
Urban100
Manga109
SwinIR-lt [ 32 ]
×2
1409.8
1287
244.2
910
38.14/0.9611
33.86/0.9206
32.31/0.9012
32.76/0.9340
39.12/0.9783
ELAN-lt [ 75 ]
94.5
887
203.1
621
38.17/0.9611
33.94/0.9207
32.30/0.9012
32.76/0.9340
39.11/0.9782
OmniSR [ 62 ]
120.3
1031
194.5
772
38.22/0.9613
33.98/0.9210
32.36/0.9020
33.05/0.9363
39.28/0.9784
SRFormer-lt [ 81 ]
1456.3
1184
236.3
853
38.23/0.9613
33.94/0.9209
32.36/0.9019
32.91/0.9353
39.28/0.9785
ATD-lt [ 73 ]
733.5
2839
380.0
753
38.29/0.9616
34.10/0.9217
32.39/0.9023
33.27/0.9375
39.52/0.9789
Appendix
Table 12: Comparisons of lightweight SR methods trained on the DIV2K dataset. We reuse the statistics reported in prior work [ 30 ] and additionally include results we measured, following their procedure. The best result is bolded.
Method
Scale
Latency (ms)
Mem (MB)
#FLOPs (G)
#params (K)
PSNR / SSIM
Set5
Set14
B100
Urban100
Manga109
SRFormer-lt [ 81 ]
×2
1838.1
1184
236.3
853
38.24/0.9615
34.13/0.9218
32.42/0.9026
33.37/0.9386
39.36/0.9787
ATD-lt [ 73 ]
733.5
2839
380.0
753
38.29/0.9616
34.30/0.9230
32.43/0.9027
33.62/0.9401
39.60/0.9791
HiT-SRF [ 74 ]
268.1
1804
226.5
847
38.31/0.9616
34.31/0.9230
32.45/0.9031
33.58/0.9404
39.69/0.9793
ESC [ 30 ]
120.9
831
592.0
947
38.34/0.9618
34.42/0.9235
32.50/0.9036
33.86/0.9424
39.73/0.9795
SST-lt (Ours)
191.9
755
2057.6
893
38.39/ 0.9622
34.50/0.9245
32.50/0.9038
34.03/0.9436
39.72/0.9795
Appendix
Table 13: Comparisons of lightweight SR methods trained on the DFLIP dataset. We reuse the statistics reported in prior work [ 30 ] and additionally include our results, measured following their procedure. The best result is bolded.
Method
Scale
Latency (ms)
Mem (MB)
#FLOPs (G)
#params (K)
PSNR / SSIM
Set5
Set14
B100
Urban100
Manga109
ESC [ 30 ]
×2
120.9
831
592.0
947
38.34/0.9618
34.42/0.9235
32.50/0.9036
33.86/0.9424
39.73/0.9795
ESC +RIB
121.0
901
1825.8
1008
38.40 / 0.9621
34.45 / 0.9236
32.52 / 0.9040
34.09 / 0.9440
39.77 / 0.9796
ESC [ 30 ]
×3
41.4
385
267.6
955
34.85 /0.9312
30.97/0.8511
29.41/0.8135
29.70/0.8799
34.94/0.9525
ESC +RIB
42.6
421
842.9
1016
34.83/ 0.9313
30.98 / 0.8515
29.42 / 0.8140
29.88 / 0.8824
34.99 / 0.9529
ESC [ 30 ]
×4
21.9
215
149.2
968
32.79/0.9025
29.06 / 0.7927
27.85/0.7466
27.45/0.8229
31.87/0.9239
Appendix
Table 14: Comparisons of lightweight SR methods trained on the DFLIP dataset. We reuse the statistics reported in prior work [ 30 ] and additionally include our results, measured following their procedure. The best result is bolded.
Methods
Windows
FLOPs (G)
Latency (ms)
ESC
32×32
41.3
181.16
ESC +RIB
64×64
123.8
142.52
Appendix
Table 15: Latency comparison on MacBook M2 Air. Statistics are measures while processing a 128 × 128 input.
Figure 6: Visual comparison on an Urban100 dataset for scale × 2 and × 4.
Figure 7: Local Attribution Map Analysis. Since padding and cropping for windowing inside networks hinder accurate comparison, we compare SST-L and SST-L + separately, leveraging 512 × 512 and 768 × 768 images, respectively.
Figure 8: PCA visualization of the gating coefficient ( G ) and self-attention output ( O ) under PWConv and our proposed Convolutional Local Attention (CLA). We visualize the first 64 × 64 window self-attention within the last SST block. To visualize the extracted features, we apply Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to reduce the channel dimension to three components and render them as RGB channels [ 67 ] . Compared to PWConv-only variants, the self-attention layer with CLA is less affected by local textures and more robustly extracts structural features across the entire image.
Transformer-based approaches have revolutionized image super-resolution by modeling long-range dependencies. However, the quadratic computational complexity of vanilla self-attention mechanisms poses significant challenges, often leading to compromises between efficiency and global context exploitation. Recent window-based attention methods mitigate this by localizing computations, but they often yield restricted receptive fields. To mitigate these limitations, we propose Selective Aggregation Transformer (SAT). This novel transformer efficiently captures long-range dependencies, leading to an enlarged model receptive field by selectively aggregating key-value matrices (reducing the number of tokens by 97%) via our Density-driven Token Aggregation algorithm while maintaining the full resolution of the query matrix. This design significantly reduces computational costs, resulting in lower complexity and enabling scalable global interactions without compromising reconstruction fidelity. SAT identifies and represents each cluster with a single aggregation token, utilizing density and isolation metrics to ensure that critical high-frequency details are preserved. Experimental results demonstrate that SAT outperforms the state-of-the-art method PFT by up to 0.22dB, while the total number of FLOPs can be reduced by up to 27%.
Single image super-resolution aims to reconstruct high-resolution images from low-resolution inputs. This paper proposes FreeTransformSR, a novel lightweight super-resolution network based on a channel-wise free low-rank learnable transform. The transform learns task-adaptive basis functions in a data-driven manner, enabling adaptive feature modulation with minimal parameter overhead. To further enhance high-frequency detail recovery, we introduce a local feature modulation branch that complements transform-domain processing with depthwise convolution. In addition, a soft complexity adaptive module dynamically fuses the outputs of local convolution and window self-attention branches through a lightweight gating network, adaptively adjusting the fusion ratio based on regional texture characteristics. An adaptive intensity modulation strategy is also incorporated to adjust transform-domain response strength at the sample level, enabling the network to dynamically adjust processing intensity according to input features. Extensive experiments on five benchmark datasets demonstrate that FreeTransformSR achieves competitive PSNR/SSIM performance with significantly fewer parameters and FLOPs. Specifically, FreeTransformSR achieves 32.41 dB on BSD100 x2 and 27.00 dB on Urban100 x4 with only 595K parameters, while delivering faster inference speed than competing methods, making it well-suited for deployment in resource-constrained scenarios. Source code is available at: https://github.com/HJiLi/FreeTransformSR.
Hongji Li, Yunhui Li
Chinese Academy of Sciences Changchun Institute of Optics Fine Mechanics and Physics, Changchun, Jilin 130033, China · University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Single Image Super-Resolution (SISR) is a fundamental computer vision task that aims to reconstruct a high-resolution (HR) image from a low-resolution (LR) input. Transformer-based methods have achieved remarkable performance by modeling long-range dependencies in degraded images. However, their feature-intensive attention computation incurs high computational cost. To improve efficiency, most existing approaches partition images into fixed groups and restrict attention within each group. Such group-wise attention overlooks the inherent asymmetry in token similarities, thereby failing to enable flexible and token-adaptive attention computation. To address this limitation, we propose the Individualized Exploratory Transformer (IET), which introduces a novel Individualized Exploratory Attention (IEA) mechanism that allows each token to adaptively select its own content-aware and independent attention candidates. This token-adaptive and asymmetric design enables more precise information aggregation while maintaining computational efficiency. Extensive experiments on standard SR benchmarks demonstrate that IET achieves state-of-the-art performance under comparable computational complexity.
Chunyu Meng, Wei Long, Shuhang Gu
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China