Organizations: School of Computer Science, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China · Shenzhen Research Institute of Northwestern Polytechnical University, Shenzhen 518057, China · State Key Laboratory of Internet of Things for Smart City, University of Macau, Macau 999078, China · National-Local Joint Engineering Research Center of Biodiagnosis and Biotherapy, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710006, China · Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China · College of Information and Control Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710064, China
Image Restoration (IR) agents, leveraging multimodal large language models to perceive degradation and invoke restoration tools, have shown promise in automating IR tasks. However, existing IR agents typically lack an insight summarization mechanism for past interactions, which results in an exhaustive search for the optimal IR tool. To address this limitation, we propose a portrait-aware IR agent, dubbed PaAgent, which incorporates a self-evolving portrait bank for IR tools and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to select a suitable IR tool for input. Specifically, to construct and evolve the portrait bank, the PaAgent continuously enriches it by summarizing the characteristics of various IR tools with restored images, selected IR tools, and degraded images. In addition, the RAG is employed to select the optimal IR tool for the input image by retrieving relevant insights from the portrait bank. Furthermore, to enhance PaAgent's ability to perceive degradation in complex scenes, we propose a subjective-objective reinforcement learning strategy that considers both image quality scores and semantic insights in reward generation, which accurately provides the degradation information even under partial and non-uniform degradation. Extensive experiments across 8 IR benchmarks, covering six single-degradation and eight mixed-degradation scenarios, validate PaAgent's superiority in addressing complex IR tasks. Our project page is PaAgent.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Execution workflows of existing agent-based IR methods [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ] . (a) One-step decision methods follow a rigid sequential pipeline, which is prone to error accumulation. (b) Multi-step decision methods introduce a reflection-based iterative mechanism for evaluating and refining restoration results.
Fig. 2: The illustration of quality score ambiguity. Despite possessing similar overall quality scores (calculated following [ 34 ] ), these two images exhibit distinct spatial degradation patterns.
Fig. 3: Overview of the proposed PaAgent architecture. (a) illustrates the entire workflow of PaAgent, which leverages Qwen3.5-9B [ 47 ] for degradation perception and task recommendation, followed by an RAG [ 38 ] module that queries the constructed tool portrait bank for optimal tool invocation. (b) depicts the evolution of the tool portrait bank, where interaction insights are summarized by Qwen3.5-Plus [ 47 ] and stored for future utilization. (c) shows the SORL strategy, which integrates MLLM’s insights and NR-IQA scores [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ] via Qwen3.5-Plus [ 47 ] to generate reward signals, thereby driving the GRPO [ 39 ] algorithm to fine-tune Qwen3.5-9B. [ 47 ]
Fig. 4: The illustration of the RAG [ 38 ] process. It mainly consists of two phases: (1) offline knowledge base construction (upper stream), where the tool portrait bank is chunked, embedded via an embedding model, and stored in a vector database; and (2) online retrieval and reasoning (lower stream), where the query is embedded to retrieve relevant chunks through similarity search. The retrieved chunks are then integrated into prompt templates and fed into the QWen3.5-Plus [ 47 ] to select the IR tool.
Fig. 5: Visual comparison of different methods on snow (CSD [ 1 ] ) and noise (BSD68 [ 2 ] ) images. Our PaAgent yields better visual results on different degraded images, with outputs closer to the reference images.
Fig. 6: Visual comparison of different methods on haze (SOTS [ 3 ] ) and rainy (Rain13K [ 4 ] ) images. Our PaAgent yields better visual results on different degraded images, with outputs closer to the reference images.
Fig. 7: Visual comparison of different methods on low-light (LOL-V1 [ 5 ] ) and blur (GoPro [ 52 ] ) images. Our PaAgent yields better visual results on different degraded images, with outputs closer to the reference images.
Fig. 8: Visual comparison of different methods on composite degradation (LOL_Blur [ 50 ] and CDD-11 [ 7 ] ) images. Our PaAgent yields better visual results on different degraded images, with outputs closer to the reference images.
Desnowing
Denoising (BSD68 [ 2 ] )
CSD [ 1 ]
σ =5
σ =10
σ =15
σ =25
σ =35
σ =50
Method
Venue
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PromptIR [ 20 ]
NIPS’23
20.45
0.79
27.00
0.80
33.11
0.93
31.64
0.90
28.41
0.82
26.22
0.75
23.62
0.65
GridFormer [ 21 ]
IJCV’24
15.94
0.79
24.64
0.69
28.82
0.88
27.00
0.81
23.85
0.67
21.68
0.56
19.18
0.44
RAM [ 22 ]
ECCV’24
20.08
0.79
30.60
0.86
33.16
0.93
31.94
0.91
30.06
0.86
28.60
0.82
26.74
0.76
NDR-Restore [ 23 ]
TIP’24
20.06
0.78
27.38
0.79
32.29
0.91
31.98
0.90
29.29
0.84
27.67
0.79
23.78
0.65
TABLE I: Quantitative results of different methods on desnowing and denoising datasets. σ denotes the noise level The best results are marked in red.
Dehazing (SOTS [ 3 ] )
Deraining (Rain13K [ 4 ] )
Indoor
Outdoor
Rain100L
Rain100H
Test100
Test1200
Test2800
Method
Venue
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PromptIR [ 20 ]
NIPS’23
23.52
0.93
27.12
0.93
37.34
0.98
15.66
0.53
22.37
0.73
24.25
0.76
25.46
0.83
GridFormer [ 21 ]
IJCV’24
11.96
0.70
17.30
0.84
25.40
0.85
12.22
0.39
21.80
0.69
23.12
0.71
23.87
0.77
RAM [ 22 ]
ECCV’24
13.09
0.74
28.23
0.95
28.16
0.90
26.44
0.85
25.72
0.86
31.14
0.90
31.20
0.92
NDR-Restore [ 23 ]
TIP’24
17.27
0.85
27.12
0.95
36.58
0.98
14.63
0.49
22.17
0.72
23.28
0.73
25.29
0.84
TABLE II: Quantitative results of different methods on dehazing and deraining datasets. The best results are marked in red.
LLIE
Deblurring (GoPro [ 52 ] )
LLIE+Deblurring (LOL_Blur [ 50 ] )
LOL-V1 [ 5 ]
Blur_gamma
Blur
Low-light
Low-light+Blur
Method
Venue
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PromptIR [ 20 ]
NIPS’23
7.66
0.18
22.14
0.75
22.15
0.75
8.18
0.18
8.15
0.16
GridFormer [ 21 ]
IJCV’24
7.73
0.18
24.89
0.78
25.14
0.78
8.75
0.27
8.77
0.25
RAM [ 22 ]
ECCV’24
26.24
0.90
27.08
0.86
27.63
0.86
9.10
0.29
8.79
0.26
NDR-Restore [ 23 ]
TIP’24
7.61
0.17
23.72
0.77
23.84
0.77
8.48
0.23
8.45
0.21
TABLE III: Quantitative results of different methods on low-light image enhancement (LLIE) and deblurring datasets. Blur_gamma denotes blurred images with gamma correction. The best results are marked in red.
Single Degradation
Double Degradation
Triple Degradation
Haze (H)
Rain (R)
Snow (S)
Low-light (L)
H+R
H+S
L+H
L+R
L+S
L+H+R
L+H+S
Method
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PromptIR [ 20 ]
17.52
0.76
18.76
0.74
17.95
0.73
14.49
0.63
17.43
0.72
16.83
0.73
15.27
0.65
15.12
0.61
13.80
0.57
15.67
0.64
14.96
0.62
GridFormer [ 21 ]
17.32
0.78
18.92
0.77
18.83
0.77
14.62
0.64
18.21
0.79
16.79
0.76
15.67
0.68
14.85
0.60
13.34
0.60
15.95
0.66
15.51
0.67
RAM [ 22 ]
15.73
0.72
18.49
0.76
16.90
0.69
14.41
0.64
15.89
0.72
15.15
0.68
15.25
0.65
14.54
0.66
13.87
0.57
15.66
0.65
14.89
0.61
NDR-Restore [ 23 ]
17.02
0.74
18.40
0.73
17.53
0.72
14.43
0.62
17.19
0.72
16.17
0.72
15.16
0.63
15.12
0.61
13.78
0.57
15.58
0.63
14.85
0.60
TABLE IV: Quantitative results of different methods on the CDD-11 [ 7 ] dataset. The best results are marked in red.
Double Degradation
Triple Degradation
H+S
L+S
L+H+R
L+H+S
Method
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
w/ RS
19.33
0.71
18.27
0.70
17.57
0.68
17.39
0.65
w/ MS
23.36
0.74
22.94
0.72
21.58
0.70
20.09
0.68
w/ SFT
25.31
0.86
24.84
0.78
24.10
0.75
23.59
0.71
w/ SE
26.68
0.88
26.01
0.82
25.53
0.81
24.21
0.79
TABLE V: The average PSNR and SSIM scores of ablation study of the tool portrait bank and the subjective-objective reinforcement learning strategy on the CDD-11 [ 7 ] dataset. The best results are marked in red.
Fig. 9: Visualization results of ablation study on the tool portrait bank and the subjective-objective reinforcement learning strategy. In the zoomed-in areas, our full model yields better visual results on different degraded images, with outputs closer to the reference images.
Fig. 10: Ablation study on the input context of our proposed PaAgent. Incorrect and correct restoration task suggestions are marked in purple and red , respectively. Our full model consistently generates accurate restoration strategies across various degradation scenarios.
Fig. 11: Ablation study on the multi-step decision mechanism of our PaAgent. Our full model dynamically evaluates intermediate results and triggers additional restoration steps when necessary, thereby avoiding premature termination caused by the fixed restoration sequence.
Vision-language agents that orchestrate specialized tools for image restoration (IR) have emerged as a promising method, yet most existing frameworks operate in a training-free manner. They rely on heuristic task scheduling and exhaustive tool traversal, resulting in sub-optimal restoration paths and prohibitive computational cost. We argue that the core bottleneck lies in the absence of a learned policy to make decision, as a vision-language model cannot efficiently handle degradation-aware task ordering and tool composition. To this end, we propose TIR-Agent, a trainable image restoration agent that performs a direct tool-calling policy through a two-stage training pipeline of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by reinforcement learning (RL). Two key designs underpin effective RL training: (i) a random perturbation strategy applied to the SFT data, which broadens the policy's exploration over task schedules and tool compositions, and (ii) a multi-dimensional adaptive reward mechanism that dynamically re-weights heterogeneous image quality metrics to mitigate reward hacking. To support high-throughput, asynchronous GPU-based tool invocation during training, we further develop a globally shared model-call pool. Experiments on both in-domain and out-of-domain degradations show that TIR-Agent outperforms 12 baselines, including 6 all-in-one models, 3 training-free agents, and 3 proprietary models, and achieves over 2.5× inference speedup by eliminating redundant tool executions.
Guoli Jia, Yisheng Zhang, Haote Hu +11
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Data Science & Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, China Unicom, Beijing, China · Hunan University, Changsha, China +2
Real-world image restoration (IR) remains challenging due to complex and coupled degradations. While recent agentic IR frameworks leverage Large Language Models for flexible tool planning, they face two critical limitations. First, from a search scheme perspective, excessive reliance on greedy strategies fails to balance exploration and exploitation. Second, existing agentic systems underutilize information, exhibiting episodic amnesia. To address these challenges, we propose Self-Evolving Agentic Image Restoration (SEAR), which formulates restoration as a sequential decision-making problem. Inspired by the dual-process theory, SEAR comprises an Intuitive Executor and a Deliberate Planner, respectively following the fast-thinking System 1 and slow-thinking System 2 principles. The Deliberate Planner employs Pruning-Aware Monte Carlo Tree Search for long-horizon reasoning, utilizing a hybrid no-reference reward and a Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM)-based tournament to prevent metric exploitation. Complementarily, the Intuitive Executor leverages a self-evolving episodic memory indexed by degradation-aware state fingerprints. This mechanism distills expensive search trajectories into adaptive expertise, overcoming episodic amnesia while progressively amortizing cold-start exploration costs through memory reuse. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world benchmarks demonstrate its strong perceptual and quantitative performance.
Shuang Cui, Fan Ji, Guanglong Sun +4
Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China +1
Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM)-driven image restoration agent demonstrates effectiveness in degradation coupling scenarios by flexibly selecting tools and determining removal orders. However, its zero-shot planning often fails without experience, necessitating severe trial-and-error overhead to achieve satisfactory outcomes. Currently, two paradigms are employed to address this issue, yet a dilemma persists: Training-based methods embed intrinsic experience into parameters, achieving high inference efficiency but lacking compatibility with new tools or degradations. In contrast, training-free methods utilize explicit experience storage for compatibility but still incur trial-and-error overhead due to naive experience. To resolve the dilemma, we propose EvoIR-Agent, which first systematically formulates the experience components of a training-free image restoration agent. Subsequently, a hierarchical experience pool is constructed, which enables coarse-to-fine guidance for diverse tools and removal orders. Furthermore, a self-evolving mechanism is introduced to update the pool from scratch using accumulated records, thereby greatly improving performance and efficiency. Extensive experiments reveal that EvoIR-Agent achieves a significant lead in the full reference metrics and yields a Pareto-optimal balance, which outperforms state-of-the-art methods in performance and is 61% more efficient.
Kailin Zhuang, Jiawei Wu, Zhi Jin
School of Intelligent Systems Engineering Shenzhen Campus of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong, China · Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Fire Science and Intelligent Emergency Technology, Shenzhen, China