Recent advances in image restoration have enabled high-fidelity recovery of faces from degraded inputs using reference-based face restoration models (Ref-FR). However, such methods focus solely on facial regions, neglecting degradation across the full scene, including body and background, which limits practical usability. Meanwhile, full-scene restorers often ignore degradation cues entirely, leading to underdetermined predictions and visual artifacts. In this work, we propose Face2Scene, a two-stage restoration framework that leverages the face as a perceptual oracle to estimate degradation and guide the restoration of the entire image. Given a degraded image and one or more identity references, we first apply a Ref-FR model to reconstruct high-quality facial details. From the restored-degraded face pair, we extract a face-derived degradation code that captures degradation attributes (e.g., noise, blur, compression), which is then transformed into multi-scale degradation-aware tokens. These tokens condition a diffusion model to restore the full scene in a single step, including the body and background. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superior effectiveness of the proposed method compared to state-of-the-art methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Overview of the Face2Scene pipeline. In stage I, we leverage a set of reference faces to restore the LQ face crop. In stage II, we use the pair of LQ and HQ faces to extract a guided degradation with FaDeX and inject it into a one-step diffusion model using MapNet. The diffusion model then reconstructs the full-scene image.
Figure 3: Visual comparison of Face2Scene with the three top-performing methods from the quantitative results (zoom in to see details).
InScene dataset
Split
Subset
Category
#Images
#IDs
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
MUSIQ ↑
Train
Non-reference dataset
Real
29,697
–
0.6935
0.4641
69.8439
Reference dataset
Synthetic
11,266
905
0.7191
0.4442
73.7415
Real
16,486
914
0.6775
0.4972
74.6676
Total (Train)
Mix
57,449
1,819
0.6967
0.4685
72.7510
Test
InScene Validation Dataset
Synthetic
1,329
100
0.7183
0.4441
73.6618
Table 1: Dataset Description. We organize the data into Train and Test splits. The Train split includes non-reference and reference (synthetic + real) data; the Test split consists of validation (synthetic + real) and real test subsets. CLIP-IQA (C-IQA), MANIQA (M-IQA), and MUSIQ columns show the average quality of generated (in the synthetic case) or filtered (in the real case) images.
InScene Synthetic Validation Dataset
Methods
Step
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
MUSIQ ↑
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
LIQE ↑
TOPIQ ↑
SUPIR [ 57 ]
50
0.1361
0.3123
24.0834
0.6293
24.85
70.2011
0.6015
0.3629
4.0243
0.6011
DiffBIR [ 30 ]
50
0.1831
0.3958
23.5234
0.5301
36.15
68.5089
0.6975
0.4476
3.3834
0.6419
ResShift [ 58 ]
4
0.1859
0.3648
24.6416
0.5947
25.64
64.5717
0.6158
0.3493
2.9746
0.5090
PASD [ 54 ]
20
0.1623
0.4014
25.4177
0.5644
21.29
65.3052
0.4745
0.2943
3.0844
0.4861
OSEDiff [ 52 ]
1
0.1287
0.2881
24.2400
0.6057
22.67
71.0863
0.6634
0.3803
4.1167
0.6297
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on the InScene synthetic and real validation sets. Arrows indicate whether lower ( ↓ ) or higher ( ↑ ) values are better. Here, 1+N denotes a single diffusion step plus N additional inference steps of a Ref-FR model. C-IQA and M-IQA denote CLIP-IQA and MANIQA, respectively. Each cell is color-coded to represent the best and second-best performance.
InScene Synthetic Validation Dataset
Methods
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
MUSIQ ↑
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
LIQE ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Wins ↑
S3Diff ( GT Face Inserted ) [ 60 ]
0.1000
0.2392
24.0985
0.6231
16.05
72.5181
0.6991
0.3933
4.4730
0.6441
2/10
Face2Scene ( GT Face Inserted )
0.0908
0.2268
23.3759
0.5904
13.86
74.4256
0.7591
0.4368
4.6983
0.6593
8/10
S3Diff ( Face only )
0.1313
0.1510
23.3827
0.6268
26.96
64.4375
0.7362
0.4942
–
0.6984
2/9
Face2Scene ( Face only )
0.1201
0.1446
23.0089
0.6118
18.50
67.0781
0.7606
0.5398
–
0.7237
7/9
Face2Scene w Degradation Estimation
0.1007
0.2421
22.9040
0.5574
15.26
74.7630
0.7640
0.4347
4.7157
0.6515
10/10
Table 3: Scene and face restoration analysis. “ GT Face Inserted ” indicates we composite the ground-truth face region into the restored image to isolate each method’s impact on the rest of the scene. The two rows (“ Face only ”) report metrics computed only within the facial region (without GT insertion). LIQE for face only is not reported because the model is sensitive to input size and cannot handle small face sizes. The last two rows show our method with and without the proposed degradation estimation. The best value per metric is bolded .
Figure 4: Cosine similarity analysis. We show the cosine similarity across embeddings of image pairs with different degradations. (Left) similarities per degradation type (averaged over images). (Right) similarities per image, averaged over degradation types. Shaded area shows standard deviation. This confirms FaDeX isolates degradation from image content.
Figure 5: Scene diversity visualization. Word-cloud representation of the semantic tags extracted from our synthetic dataset using the RAM++ [ 65 ] image-tagging model. Larger words indicate tags that occur more frequently across generated images, highlighting the broad diversity of scenes captured in our dataset.
Figure 6: Four representative images of our synthetic InScene dataset. Each sample is shown alongside its structured prompt. We also show the stored metadata, including facial landmarks, bounding boxes, and associated identity labels.
Figure 7: Real dataset preprocessing pipeline. Our real-world images are standardized through a three-stage filtering process. Stage 1 removes images with insufficient resolution and ensures a detectable face is present. Stage 2 enforces content quality by verifying that the face region is sufficiently large and the image is not overly blurred (e.g., due to defocus blur in the background, as in the example image shown above). Stage 3 applies no-reference image quality metrics (MUSIQ, CLIP-IQA, and MANIQA) to retain only high-quality samples.
Figure 8: Overview of FaDeX contrastive learning. Momentum-encoder contrastive training setup with dual encoders and a queue of negatives to learn degradation-discriminative face embeddings.
InScene Test Dataset
Methods
MUSIQ ↑
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
LIQE ↑
TOPIQ ↑
SUPIR [ 57 ]
60.4119
0.3506
0.3108
2.8347
0.4210
DiffBIR [ 30 ]
71.4031
0.6701
0.5238
4.3273
0.6751
ResShift [ 58 ]
65.8328
0.5414
0.3827
3.7667
0.4916
PASD [ 54 ]
71.6666
0.5920
0.4849
4.3644
0.6483
OSEDiff [ 52 ]
72.6963
0.6327
0.4819
4.4864
0.6583
Table 4: Quantitative comparison on the InScene Test Dataset. Since real-world photographs do not have a ground-truth image against which to compare, we quantitatively evaluate on our InScene Test data via no-reference IQA models. Arrows indicate whether lower ( ↓ ) or higher ( ↑ ) values are better. C-IQA and M-IQA denote CLIP-IQA and MANIQA, respectively. Each cell is color-coded to represent the best and second-best performance.
Figure 9: Model complexity comparison. We compare inference time across different diffusion-based restoration models. For Face2Scene, we show the separate time costs of the reference-based preprocessing and our final restoration as two different shades. While our method is not as efficient as standard one-step models, which do not require an initial face restoration step, it is still considerably faster than current multistep models, despite performing on-par or better than them, in terms of image quality and restoration fidelity.
Figure 10: Effect of CFG scaling. We vary the CFG scaling factor from 1.00 to 1.16 on the InScene synthetic validation set. The top row shows no-reference metrics and the bottom row shows reference-based metrics, illustrating the trade-off between perceptual quality and fidelity. In particular, although there is some noise in the trends, one can see that the no-reference quality metrics tend to improve as the CFG weight increases, while the low-level fidelity (PSNR and SSIM) tend to decline. The orange dot signifies the CFG weight that we chose, which obtains high perceptual quality while maintaining fidelity (particularly according to the full-reference perceptual metrics).
InScene Synthetic Validation Dataset
VAE LoRA Rank
UNet LoRA Rank
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
MUSIQ ↑
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
LIQE ↑
TOPIQ ↑
4
4
0.1771
0.4034
24.1619
0.6153
29.15
62.0885
0.5289
0.3093
3.6797
0.4913
8
8
0.1523
0.3505
23.9881
0.6035
23.28
65.8073
0.6009
0.3433
3.9864
0.5469
16
16
0.1244
0.2881
23.4638
0.5834
19.58
71.1710
0.6928
0.3906
4.3963
0.5984
16
32
0.1007
0.2421
22.9040
0.5574
15.26
74.7630
0.7640
0.4347
4.7157
0.6515
32
32
0.1076
0.2536
23.3672
0.5736
16.61
73.7835
0.7545
0.4434
4.6329
0.6607
Table 5: Impact of LoRA rank on the VAE encoder and UNet. We evaluate different LoRA rank configurations for the VAE and UNet to analyze their effect on restoration quality across perceptual, fidelity, and no-reference metrics on the InScene synthetic validation set. We observe that low ranks heavily damage performance, on both perceptual distances (LPIPS and DISTS) and no-reference quality. Our 16/32 configuration performs quite well on both types, though it is at the expense of pixel-level metrics (PSNR and SSIM). Increasing the rank beyond this causes a slight decline according to most metrics.
InScene Synthetic Validation Dataset
Configuration
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
MUSIQ ↑
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
LIQE ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Global only (1 Token)
0.1180
0.2671
23.6223
0.5862
19.50
72.0117
0.6497
0.3769
4.2772
0.5942
Global + Intermediate (5 Tokens)
0.1294
0.2997
23.7422
0.5921
21.92
69.9288
0.6582
0.3665
4.2190
0.5820
Global + Intermediate + Local (21 Tokens)
0.1007
0.2421
22.9040
0.5574
15.26
74.7630
0.7640
0.4347
4.7157
0.6515
Table 6: Ablation on hierarchical components. We incrementally enable global, intermediate, and local components to assess their impact on restoration quality across perceptual, fidelity, and no-reference metrics. Our complete configuration, which combines tokens across scales, performs the best across all perceptual evaluation measures (i.e., excluding the low-level distortion measures, PSNR and SSIM).
Dataset
Metric ↑
SUPIR [ 57 ]
DiffBIR [ 30 ]
ResShift [ 58 ]
PASD [ 54 ]
OSEDiff [ 52 ]
SinSR [ 49 ]
InvSR [ 59 ]
S3Diff [ 60 ]
Face2Scene
Synthetic
ID Score
0.4434
0.4433
0.4477
0.4030
0.4477
0.4239
0.4055
0.4684
0.4867
Real
0.4333
0.4286
0.4692
0.4333
0.3766
0.4334
0.3892
0.4598
0.4881
Table 7: Identity similarity on the InScene validation datasets. Our ID score measures similarity in terms of identity, meaning higher values indicate better identity preservation. Since our reference-aware degradation estimator explicitly discards non-degradation information, including identity, we investigated identity preservation as a metric specifically. We find that our method still performs best, in terms of retaining or inferring identity. This suggests our degradation estimation is accurate enough to help the model recover the true underlying face details, thereby preserving the correct identity as well.
InScene Synthetic Validation Dataset
Methods
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
MUSIQ ↑
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
LIQE ↑
TOPIQ ↑
S3Diff [ 60 ]
0.1131
0.2557
23.5955
0.5916
18.06
72.1764
0.6980
0.3858
4.4248
0.6233
S3Diff **
0.1039
0.2486
22.4990
0.5382
15.81
74.5945
0.7605
0.4384
4.7127
0.6450
Face2Scene (ours)
0.1007
0.2421
22.9040
0.5574
15.26
74.7630
0.7640
0.4347
4.7157
0.6515
InScene Real Validation Dataset
Methods
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
MUSIQ ↑
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
LIQE ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Table 8: Quantitative comparison on the InScene synthetic and real validation sets. To investigate the importance of training with our dataset and provide a fairer comparison, we retrain the S3Diff model on our InScene dataset under the same experimental settings, resulting in the model denoted S3Diff ** . Although doing so does result in improved performance over the standard S3Diff, our approach still outperforms S3Diff ** by a significant margin, particularly according to the full-reference metrics on the Real set. Since our method is built upon S3Diff, this suggests our novel reference-derived degradation estimation module is necessary to obtain strong performance. Arrows indicate whether lower ( ↓ ) or higher ( ↑ ) values are better. C-IQA and M-IQA denote CLIP-IQA and MANIQA, respectively. Each cell is color-coded to represent the best and second-best performance.
Method
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
MUSIQ ↑
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
LIQE ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Face2Scene
0.099 / 0.101 / 0.106
0.239 / 0.242 / 0.251
23.01 / 22.90 / 22.86
0.562 / 0.557 / 0.562
15.03 / 15.26 / 17.83
74.40 / 74.76 / 74.81
0.762 / 0.764 / 0.770
0.431 / 0.435 / 0.442
4.70 / 4.72 / 4.76
0.643 / 0.652 / 0.652
S3Diff
0.113
0.256
23.60
0.592
18.06
72.18
0.698
0.386
4.42
0.623
FaceMe
0.219 / 0.227 / 0.238
0.375 / 0.403 / 0.452
25.65 / 24.73 / 22.98
0.729 / 0.711 / 0.515
58.74 / 62.73 / 68.37
74.21 / 74.57 / 74.29
0.676 / 0.684 / 0.688
0.558 / 0.564 / 0.562
4.90 / 4.93 / 4.89
0.679 / 0.681 / 0.680
Table 9: Robustness to reference restoration quality on the InScene Synthetic validation set. For Face2Scene, the Stage I Ref-FR model produces reference faces at three quality levels ( good / medium / bad ). The table reports the resulting scene restoration performance when these references are used in Stage II. As the reference quality decreases, Face2Scene shows only moderate degradation across perceptual and no-reference quality metrics, indicating that the scene restoration stage is robust to imperfect face restoration. In particular, even with degraded references, Face2Scene remains competitive with S3Diff, demonstrating that Stage II does not require near-perfect reference faces to operate effectively.
Method
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
MUSIQ ↑
LIQE ↑
CodeFormer [ 68 ]
0.1665
0.2504
26.0058
0.7089
26.27
75.3111
4.8531
OSDFace [ 43 ]
0.1606
0.2485
24.7144
0.7009
22.31
75.4782
4.8672
RestoreFormer++ [ 51 ]
0.2012
0.3925
20.4579
0.5954
26.67
74.5379
4.7613
Face2Scene
0.1432
0.2180
26.4253
0.7367
19.21
74.6088
4.8789
Table 10: Face restoration comparison on CelebA-Ref. Face2Scene achieves the best performance on most metrics against dedicated face restoration baselines. This is consistent with the use of reference images, which provide additional identity and appearance cues.
Method
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
MUSIQ ↑
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
LIQE ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Face2Scene
0.1137
0.2599
22.9552
0.5571
17.88
73.9026
0.7586
0.4269
4.6433
0.6405
S3Diff
0.1275
0.2794
23.8162
0.5923
19.55
70.9485
0.6870
0.3800
4.2837
0.6143
Table 11: Comparison under spatially varying blur. We replace the first blur stage of the Real-ESRGAN degradation pipeline with a position-dependent blur field, such that blur is weaker near the center and stronger toward the corners. Although trained assuming globally consistent degradations, Face2Scene remains robust and outperforms S3Diff on most perceptual and no-reference metrics, indicating better perceptual restoration under spatially varying blur.
Method
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
MUSIQ ↑
C-IQA ↑
M-IQA ↑
LIQE ↑
TOPIQ ↑
Face2Scene
0.1007
0.2421
22.9040
0.5574
15.26
74.7630
0.7640
0.4347
4.7157
0.6515
RedegNet [ 27 ]
0.1675
0.3868
24.7300
0.6290
36.06
66.9653
0.4893
0.3056
3.1354
0.5181
Table 12: Comparison between Face2Scene and RedegNet [ 27 ] on InScene Synthetic Validation Dataset. Face2Scene achieves better perceptual quality and no-reference image quality metrics, while RedegNet attains higher PSNR and SSIM. ReDegNet learns realistic degradation representations from face images and transfers them to natural images to synthesize degraded training data for blind image super-resolution.
Figure 11: Visual comparison on InScene Synthetic dataset across seven methods.
Figure 12: Visual comparison on InScene Synthetic dataset across seven methods.
Figure 13: Visual comparison on InScene Synthetic dataset across seven methods.
Figure 14: Visual comparison on InScene Synthetic dataset across seven methods.
Figure 15: Visual comparison on InScene Synthetic dataset across seven methods.
Figure 16: Visual comparison on InScene Synthetic dataset across seven methods.
Figure 17: Visual comparison on real validation across seven methods.
Figure 18: Visual comparison on real validation across seven methods.
Figure 19: Visual comparison across restoration methods on real test samples.
Figure 20: Visual comparison across restoration methods on real test samples.
Figure 21: Visual comparison across restoration methods on real test samples.
Figure 22: Failure Cases. Our method, like other SD 2.1-based restorers, struggles to recover fine text and very small faces, reflecting the backbone’s limited text rendering ability and difficulty preserving details in tiny spatial regions. More advanced backbones such as FLUX or SD3.5, which provide higher native resolution and stronger text/face modeling, could alleviate these issues.
Face restoration under complex degradations still remains an ill-posed inverse problem due to severe information loss. Although diffusion models benefit from strong generative priors, most methods still condition only on low-quality inputs, making it difficult to recover identity-critical details under heavy degradations. In this work, we propose HDRFace, a High-Dimensional Representation conditioned Face restoration framework that injects semantically rich priors into the conditional flow without modifying the generative backbone. Our pipeline first obtains a structurally reliable intermediate restoration with an off-the-shelf restorer, then uses a pretrained high-dimensional feature encoder to extract fine-grained facial representations from both the low-quality input and the intermediate result, and injects them as additional conditions for generation. We further introduce SDFM, a Structure-Detail aware adaptive Fusion Mechanism that emphasizes global constraints during structure modeling and strengthens representation guidance during detail synthesis, balancing structural consistency and detail fidelity. To validate the generalization ability of our method, we implement the proposed framework on two generative models, SD V2.1-base and Qwen-Image, and consistently observe stable and coherent performance gains across different architectures.
Zirui Wang, Xianhui Lin, Yi Dong +7
City University of Hong Kong · vivo BlueImage Lab, vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd
Face restoration has achieved significant advancements through the years of development. However, maintaining high fidelity and authenticity while avoiding artifacts remains challenging, especially in extreme degradation scenarios. This highlights the need for models that are more ``honest'' in their reconstruction from low-quality inputs, accurately reflecting original characteristics. In this work, we propose HonestFace, a novel approach for honest face restoration with identity consistency and realistic textures. To achieve this, HonestFace incorporates several key components. First, we propose an identity embedder to effectively capture and preserve crucial identity features from both the low-quality input and multiple reference faces. Second, a masked face alignment method is presented to enhance fine-grained details and textural authenticity. Furthermore, we present a new real-world reference-based face restoration dataset, MultiRefCeleb-Test, with multiple high-quality references and low-quality inputs. Leveraging these contributions within a one-step diffusion model framework, HonestFace delivers excellent restoration results in terms of facial fidelity and realism. Experiments demonstrate that our approach surpasses state-of-the-art methods, achieving superior performance in both visual quality and quantitative assessments. The code and pre-trained models are available at https://github.com/jkwang28/HonestFace .
Jingkai Wang, Wu Miao, Jue Gong +5
School of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · vivo BlueImage Lab, vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China
Blind face restoration is highly ill-posed under severe degradation, where identity-critical details may be missing from the degraded input. Same-identity references reduce this ambiguity, but mismatched pose, expression, illumination, age, makeup, or local facial states can lead to overuse of reference appearance. We propose IConFace, a unified reference-aware and no-reference framework with identity--structure asymmetric conditioning. References are distilled into a norm-weighted global AdaFace identity anchor for image-only modulation, while the degraded image is reinforced as the spatial structure anchor through low-rank residuals and block-wise degraded cross-attention with two-route memory. The resulting single checkpoint exploits references when available and falls back to no-reference restoration when absent, improving identity consistency, fine-detail recovery, and degraded-only restoration quality in a unified model.