Unregistered hyperspectral image (HSI) super-resolution (SR) typically aims to enhance a low-resolution HSI using an unregistered high-resolution reference image. In this paper, we propose an unmixing-based fusion framework that decouples spatial-spectral information to simultaneously mitigate the impact of unregistered fusion and enhance the learnability of SR models. Specifically, we first utilize singular value decomposition for initial spectral unmixing, preserving the original endmembers while dedicating the subsequent network to enhancing the initial abundance map. To leverage the spatial texture of the unregistered reference, we introduce a coarse-to-fine deformable aggregation module, which first estimates a pixel-level flow and a similarity map using a coarse pyramid predictor. It further performs fine sub-pixel refinement to achieve deformable aggregation of the reference features. The aggregative features are then refined via a series of spatial-channel abundance cross-attention blocks. Furthermore, a spatial-channel modulated fusion module is presented to merge encoder-decoder features using dynamic gating weights, yielding a high-quality, high-resolution HSI. Experimental results on simulated and real datasets confirm that our proposed method achieves state-of-the-art super-resolution performance. The code will be available at https://github.com/yingkai-zhang/UAFL.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of performance (PSNR), computational cost (FLOPs), and memory cost (Params). The vertical axis represents PSNR (dB), while the horizontal axis indicates FLOPs. The size of each bubble corresponds to the number of parameters.
Figure 2: The motivation. (c) The explicit alignment within the SSCH [ 53 ] is prone to introducing spatial distortions and textural artifacts into the warped image. (d) The result validates the principle that leveraging a well-aligned, high-fidelity abundance enables the reconstruction of the HR HSI from its LR counterpart.
Figure 3: The overall architecture. We adopt a multi-scale encoder-decoder based on unmixing with several key modules: (a) Coarse-to-Fine Deformable Aggregation module, (b) Spatial-Channel Abundance Cross-Attention module, and (c) Spatial-Channel Modulation Fusion module to super-resolve high-quality HR HSI.
Figure 4: Visual comparison on the simulated dataset, ICVL [ 3 ] . The ground truth and input HSIs are shown with band 20. The results of different methods under the scale factor ( ×4 ) on the ICVL dataset with the error maps.
Method
Venue
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
Bicubic
-
35.33
0.960
0.028
SSPSR [ 17 ]
TCI’20
40.19
0.982
0.033
MCNet [ 24 ]
RS’20
39.90
0.980
0.033
BiQRNN [ 7 ]
JSTAR’21
37.85
0.974
0.039
ESSA [ 48 ]
ICCV’23
38.41
0.977
0.057
Optimized [ 9 ]
CVPR’19
25.35
0.801
0.026
Table 1: Quantitative comparison under scale factor of ×4 on the simulated dataset, ICVL [ 3 ] . PSNR is in dB. The best and second best results are highlighted in bold and underline , respectively.
Method
Venue
Scale Factor ×4
Scale Factor ×8
Scale Factor ×16
Params
FLOPs
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
(M)
(G)
Bicubic
-
34.07
0.941
0.042
28.43
0.870
0.058
24.84
0.815
0.086
-
-
SSPSR [ 17 ]
TCI’20
39.04
0.976
0.040
31.13
0.906
0.069
27.20
0.851
0.077
20.82
180.40
MCNet [ 24 ]
RS’20
39.07
0.974
0.038
31.31
0.904
0.063
27.04
0.845
0.088
2.20
280.30
BiQRNN [ 7 ]
JSTAR’21
37.80
0.969
0.044
31.66
0.908
0.060
26.53
0.832
0.111
1.30
468.70
ESSA [ 48 ]
ICCV’23
39.94
0.982
0.040
31.85
0.913
0.064
26.70
0.918
0.111
11.10
78.14
Table 2: Quantitative comparison of various methods under several scale factors on the real dataset, REAL [ 19 ] . PSNR is in dB. The best and second best results are highlighted in bold and underline , respectively.
Figure 5: Visual comparison on the real dataset, REAL [ 19 ] . The ground truth and input HSIs are shown with band 20. The results of different methods under the scale factor ( ×4 , ×8 ) on the REAL dataset with the error maps.
Unmix
SCACA
CFDA
SCMF
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
Params
✗
✗
✗
✗
41.26
0.984
0.036
5.08M
✓
✗
✗
✗
41.41
0.986
0.034
5.05M
✓
✓
✗
✗
41.66
0.987
0.034
4.85M
✓
✓
✓
✗
41.95
0.988
0.033
5.85M
✓
✓
✓
✓
42.05
0.988
0.033
5.94M
Table 3: Ablation study of the proposed components. Results on the REAL dataset at scale factor ×4 .
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
Params
w/o Aggregation
41.66
0.987
0.034
4.85M
w/ DCNv2 [ 58 ]
41.80
0.987
0.033
5.78M
w/ CFDA
41.95
0.988
0.033
5.85M
Table 4: Ablation study on the CFDA module. Results on the REAL dataset at scale factor ×4 .
Figure 6: Visual comparison of fused feature maps generated by different aggregation modules, followed by an identical attention block. Note the severe artifacts and blurred text produced by the standard DCNv2 [ 58 ] , in contrast to the superior clarity of the features from our CFDA.