Aligning generative real-world image super-resolution models with human visual preference is challenging due to the perception--fidelity trade-off and diverse, unknown degradations. Prior approaches rely on offline preference optimization and static metric aggregation, which are often non-interpretable and prone to pseudo-diversity under strong conditioning. We propose OARS, a process-aware online alignment framework built on COMPASS, a MLLM-based reward that evaluates the LR to SR transition by jointly modeling fidelity preservation and perceptual gain with an input-quality-adaptive trade-off. To train COMPASS, we curate COMPASS-20K spanning synthetic and real degradations, and introduce a three-stage perceptual annotation pipeline that yields calibrated, fine-grained training labels. Guided by COMPASS, OARS performs progressive online alignment from cold-start flow matching to full-reference and finally reference-free RL via shallow LoRA optimization for on-policy exploration. Extensive experiments and user studies demonstrate consistent perceptual improvements while maintaining fidelity, achieving state-of-the-art performance on Real-ISR benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the COMPASS-20K dataset construction and the COMPASS reward framework. (a) Data generation and score label annotation pipeline. (b) COMPASS uses an input-quality-adaptive mechanism to balance fidelity preservation and perceptual gain conditioned on input quality.
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed OARS framework. (a) Policy optimization process of our OARS framework; (b) Cold-start stage with paired LR–HR supervision; (c) Full-reference RL stage; (d) Non-reference RL stage on unpaired data guided by our reward.
Type
Method
Reg-Acc
Gen-Acc
All-Acc
GT-Ref
PSNR
80.7
41.7
34.7
SSIM [ 51 ]
83.0
45.3
37.4
LPIPS [ 73 ]
84.7
63.8
72.2
DISTS [ 16 ]
86.0
63.9
71.4
AHIQ [ 23 ]
71.0
71.5
69.6
TOPIQ [ 9 ]
78.3
73.0
77.7
Table 1: Comparison of different IQA methods on SRIQA-Bench [ 11 ] . Throughout this paper, the best, second-best, and third-best results are highlighted in bold red , underlined blue , and italic green .
Dataset
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
LIQE ↑
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
Q-Insight ↑
TOPIQ ↑
RealSR
DiffBIR [ 33 ]
23.20
0.6346
0.3350
0.2162
3.5529
65.25
0.4620
3.530
0.6033
OSEDiff [ 56 ]
23.07
0.6850
0.2941
0.2109
4.0681
68.95
0.4876
3.712
0.6441
SeeSR [ 59 ]
24.34
0.7187
0.2754
0.2134
3.3938
65.53
0.4856
3.285
0.6246
SinSR [ 50 ]
23.68
0.6649
0.3490
0.2445
3.2255
61.03
0.4230
3.264
0.5383
StableSR [ 47 ]
23.73
0.6979
0.2792
0.2023
3.0532
61.65
0.3826
3.480
0.5201
PURE [ 52 ]
21.31
0.5738
0.3859
0.2468
3.7881
66.57
0.4829
3.569
0.6301
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on three classical SR datasets, including RealSR, DIV2K, and RealSet80. ↑/↓ indicates higher/lower is better.
Figure 3: Subjective user study results. OARS achieves the highest preference rate, receiving 47.62% of the total votes.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of OARS against state-of-the-art Real-ISR methods under complex degradations.
Case
Score Calibration
Explicit Fidelity
Quality-Adaptive γ
Accuracy
1
✗
✗
✗
78.8
2
✓
✗
✗
81.5
3
✓
✓
✗
82.3
4
✓
✓
5
82.7
5
✓
✓
7
83.1
6
✓
✓
9
82.8
Table 3: Ablation study of dataset calibration, fidelity modeling, and adaptive γ .
Method
LIQE ↑
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
Q-Insight ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Qwen-SFT
4.1602
69.7866
0.5171
3.701
0.6539
+COMPASS
4.5465 (+0.39)
72.9598 (+3.17)
0.5364 (+0.02)
3.823 (+0.12)
0.6967 (+0.04)
+COMPASS+TTT
4.5792 (+0.03)
73.2551 (+0.30)
0.5428 (+0.01)
3.841 (+0.02)
0.7025 (+0.01)
DP 2 O-SR [ 58 ]
4.2159
67.9658
0.5703
3.865
0.6867
+COMPASS
4.5796 (+0.36)
72.8912 (+4.93)
0.6123 (+0.04)
3.949 (+0.08)
0.6982 (+0.01)
Table 4: Quantitative comparison between our OARS and DPO-based SR methods on RealSet80. Performance gains are reported in parentheses.
Method
RL Stage
SFT / Base
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
LIQE ↑
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
Q-Insight ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Qwen-SFT
-
-
22.71
0.6462
0.3100
0.2203
3.8146
68.5687
0.4897
3.545
0.6397
case (1)
stage1
base
22.52
0.6494
0.3115
0.2224
4.2345
71.0159
0.5244
3.685
0.6741
case (2)
stage1+stage2
base
22.36
0.6481
0.3095
0.2244
4.3045
71.4136
0.5277
3.701
0.6803
case (3)
stage1
sft
22.15
0.6266
0.3249
0.2272
4.0784
70.6030
0.5233
3.617
0.6756
case (4)
stage1+stage2
sft
21.31
0.5956
0.3326
0.2334
4.0937
70.5618
0.5293
3.667
0.6768
Table 5: Ablation study on different RL stages and initialization settings .
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Examples from the real-world low-quality subset of COMPASS-20K.
Figure 6: Effect of perceptual-gain-only optimization. Optimizing the policy using only ΔQ=QSR−QLR as the RL reward leads to severe artifacts and poor consistency with the input image, revealing clear reward hacking behavior. In contrast, COMPASS preserves fidelity while achieving clear perceptual quality improvement.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
LIQE ↑
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Qwen-SFT
22.71
0.6462
0.3100
0.2203
3.8146
68.5687
0.4897
0.6397
Qwen-SFT+OARS
22.36
0.6481
0.3095
0.2244
4.3045
71.4136
0.5277
0.6803
Flux-SFT
23.62
0.6617
0.3224
0.2168
3.8442
67.1802
0.4686
0.6031
Flux+OARS
23.10
0.6603
0.3335
0.2174
4.1277
68.3608
0.5035
0.6427
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation Study on different generative backbones. ↑ / ↓ indicate higher / lower is better.
Method
RL Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
LIQE ↑
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Qwen-SFT
–
22.71
0.6462
0.3100
0.2203
3.8146
68.5687
0.4897
0.6397
+HPSv2
OARS
22.91
0.6547
0.3154
0.2238
3.8294
68.6830
0.4966
0.6383
+Qwen25
OARS
23.08
0.6618
0.3042
0.2197
3.7682
68.2220
0.4835
0.6273
+RALI
OARS
20.83
0.5283
0.3777
0.2472
3.9657
71.0329
0.5399
0.6732
+COMPASS (Ours)
OARS
22.36
0.6481
0.3095
0.2244
4.3045
71.4136
0.5277
0.6803
+RALI
Flow-GRPO
21.08
0.5781
0.3548
0.2379
3.8757
70.3903
0.5127
0.6639
Appendix
Table 7: Quantitative comparison of different methods under full-reference and no-reference image quality assessment metrics. ↑ / ↓ indicates higher / lower is better.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
LIQE ↑
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Qwen-SFT
22.71
0.6462
0.3100
0.2203
3.8146
68.5687
0.4897
0.6397
+Formulation 1
21.38
0.6039
0.3436
0.2409
4.3654
71.8348
0.5596
0.7058
+Formulation 2
21.89
0.6203
0.3321
0.2320
4.2445
70.9428
0.5426
0.6904
+COMPASS (Ours)
22.36
0.6481
0.3095
0.2244
4.3045
71.4136
0.5277
0.6803
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation on reward formulation. Formulation 1 uses only perceptual gain, ΔQ=QSR−QLR , while Formulation 2 adds a gating term, FQLR/γ⋅ΔQ . COMPASS further introduces an input-quality-aware fidelity term, enabling perceptual improvement with better fidelity preservation.
Dataset
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
LIQE ↑
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
Q-Insight ↑
TOPIQ ↑
RealSR
DiffBIR [ 33 ]
23.20
0.6346
0.3350
0.2162
3.5529
65.25
0.4620
3.530
0.6033
OSEDiff [ 56 ]
23.07
0.6850
0.2941
0.2109
4.0681
68.95
0.4876
3.712
0.6441
PASD [ 64 ]
24.50
0.7115
0.2716
0.1954
2.8541
58.52
0.3831
3.173
0.4969
ResShift [ 70 ]
24.17
0.6528
0.4336
0.2812
2.6610
53.38
0.3412
2.781
0.4210
S3Diff [ 71 ]
23.16
0.6810
0.2748
0.1986
4.0080
67.57
0.4677
3.674
0.6301
SeeSR [ 59 ]
24.34
0.7187
0.2754
0.2134
3.3938
65.53
0.4856
3.285
0.6246
Appendix
Table 9: Quantitative comparison on four SR datasets , including RealSR, DRealSR, DIV2K, and RealSet80. ↑/↓ indicates higher/lower is better.
Figure 7: More qualitative comparisons of OARS against state-of-the-art Real-ISR methods under complex degradations.
Figure 8: More qualitative comparisons of OARS against state-of-the-art Real-ISR methods under complex degradations.
Recent advances in generative super-resolution (SR) have greatly improved visual realism, yet existing evaluation and optimization frameworks remain misaligned with human perception. Full-Reference and No-Reference metrics often fail to reflect perceptual preference, either penalizing semantically plausible details due to pixel misalignment or favoring visually sharp but inconsistent artifacts. Moreover, most SR methods rely on ground-truth (GT)-dependent distribution matching, which does not necessarily correspond to human judgments. In this work, we propose RefReward-SR, a low-resolution (LR) reference-aware reward model for preference-aligned SR. Instead of relying on GT supervision or NR evaluation, RefReward-SR assesses high-resolution (HR) reconstructions conditioned on their LR inputs, treating the LR image as a semantic anchor. Leveraging the visual-linguistic priors of a Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLM), it evaluates semantic consistency and plausibility in a reasoning-aware manner. To support this paradigm, we construct RefSR-18K, the first large-scale LR-conditioned preference dataset for SR, providing pairwise rankings based on LR-HR consistency and HR naturalness. We fine-tune the MLLM with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) using LR-conditioned ranking rewards, and further integrate GRPO into SR model training with RefReward-SR as the core reward signal for preference-aligned generation. Extensive experiments show that our framework achieves substantially better alignment with human judgments, producing reconstructions that preserve semantic consistency while enhancing perceptual plausibility and visual naturalness. Code, models, and datasets will be released upon paper acceptance.
Yushuai Song, Weize Quan, Weining Wang +8
Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · OPPO AI Center, OPPO Inc.
Diffusion prior-based methods have shown impressive results in real-world image super-resolution (ISR), yet two key challenges persist: balancing pixel-level fidelity with semantic quality, and adapting to diverse degradations. Existing dual-branch approaches freeze the pixel module during semantic training, but the semantic branch can still expand capacity within the pixel subspace, precluding genuine perceptual improvement. Moreover, using a single static adapter cannot generalize across heterogeneous real-world corruptions. To address both issues, we propose FreqOrtho-SR, which comprises: Frequency-guided Mixture of LoRA Experts (FreqMoE), it routes inputs to specialized experts via a non-parametric FFT-based degradation-feature extractor that encodes frequency-domain signatures, enabling stable and interpretable specialization across corruption types; and Orthogonal Gradient Projection (OGP), which reframes the dual-objective optimization as a subspace-constrained problem: by extracting the pixel-fidelity subspace via SVD on combined expert weight deltas and projecting semantic gradients onto its null space, OGP guarantees orthogonality between the two objectives, enabling genuinely complementary learning without mutual interference. Experiments show that FreqOrtho-SR achieves competitive overall performance and a strong fidelity-perception trade-off across multiple benchmarks with efficient single-step inference. The source code of our method can be found at sonhm3029/FreqOrtho-SR.
Minh Son Hoang, Dinh Phu Tran, Quyen Nguyen Duc +2
Real-world image super-resolution (Real-ISR) aims to preserve structures supported by the degraded observation while reconstructing perceptually realistic details. However, existing Real-ISR methods largely optimize fidelity and perceptual quality within a shared network, causing the two objectives to interfere throughout training and making their balance difficult to control. Recent one-step methods reduce sampling steps, yet often inherit both this coupled optimization behavior and the expensive high-resolution backbone of their multi-step predecessors. We argue that efficient Real-ISR requires not only a shorter sampling trajectory, but also specialized modeling of faithful reconstruction and perceptual detail synthesis. Based on this insight, we propose PixelIR, a fidelity-perception decoupling framework built upon pixel-space image-residual flow matching. PixelIR first learns an image flow that maps the degraded observation to a faithful reconstruction. Then, a residual flow synthesizes the missing perceptual details from noise without repeatedly relearning or overwriting the complete restoration solution. We further distill the teacher into a deployment-oriented one-step student within a coarse-to-fine pyramid architecture. Extensive experiments show that PixelIR achieves leading PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS on both RealSR and DRealSR. The final model completes pixel-space restoration in a single evaluation with only 32.9M parameters, 89.7G MACs, and 8.5ms latency, demonstrating a strong practical fidelity-perception-efficiency balance.
Bingtian Qiao, Yue Shi, Yong Guo +2
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Fuzhou University · Shanghai AI Laboratory