Tuning Real-World Image Restoration at Inference: A Test-Time Scaling Paradigm for Flow Matching Models
Organizations: MAIS & NLPR, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China · Kuaishou Tech, China
Abstract
Although diffusion-based real-world image restoration (Real-IR) has achieved remarkable progress, efficiently leveraging ultra-large-scale pre-trained text-to-image (T2I) models and fully exploiting their potential remain significant challenges. To address this issue, we propose ResFlow-Tuner, an image restoration framework based on the state-of-the-art flow matching model, FLUX.1-dev, which integrates unified multi-modal fusion (UMMF) with test-time scaling (TTS) to achieve unprecedented restoration performance. Our approach fully leverages the advantages of the Multi-Modal Diffusion Transformer (MM-DiT) architecture by encoding multi-modal conditions into a unified sequence that guides the synthesis of high-quality images. Furthermore, we introduce a training-free test-time scaling paradigm tailored for image restoration. During inference, this technique dynamically steers the denoising direction through feedback from a reward model (RM), thereby achieving significant performance gains with controllable computational overhead. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple standard benchmarks. This work not only validates the powerful capabilities of the flow matching model in low-level vision tasks but, more importantly, proposes a novel and efficient inference-time scaling paradigm suitable for large pre-trained models.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Metric | Real-ESRGAN | BSRGAN | StableSR | DiffBIR | PASD | SeeSR | DreamClear | OSEDiff | SUPIR | FaithDiff | PnP-Flow | FlowSR | LP | Ours |
| [ 50 ] | [ 61 ] | [ 49 ] | [ 26 ] | [ 57 ] | [ 53 ] | [ 2 ] | [ 52 ] | [ 60 ] | [ 7 ] | [ 30 ] | [ 54 ] | [ 46 ] | |||
| DIV2K-Val-I | PSNR \,{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | 26.64 | 27.63 | 24.71 | 24.60 | 25.31 | 25.08 | 23.76 | 25.13 | 25.09 | 24.29 | 23.82 | 25.02 | 22.98 | 23.11 |
| SSIM \,{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | 0.7737 | 0.7897 | 0.7131 | 0.6595 | 0.6995 | 0.6967 | 0.6574 | 0.7098 | 0.7010 | 0.6668 | 0.6632 | 0.7219 | 0.6932 | 0.6945 | |
| LPIPS \,{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\downarrow} | 0.1964 | 0.2038 | 0.2393 | 0.2496 | 0.2370 | 0.2263 | 0.2259 | 0.2382 | 0.2139 | 0.2187 | 0.2214 | 0.2143 | 0.2198 | 0.2098 | |
| PaQ-2-PiQ \,{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | 73.85 | 74.17 | 74.19 | 72.81 | 73.12 | 73.92 | 73.86 | 74.07 | 74.24 | 74.76 | 73.21 | 74.14 | 73.82 | 78.82 | |
| MANIQA \,{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | 0.5611 | 0.5507 | 0.5743 | 0.5898 | 0.5524 | 0.5749 | 0.5750 | 0.5767 | 0.6049 | 0.5945 | 0.5511 | 0.5828 | 0.5842 | 0.7261 |
| Dataset | Metric | Real-ESRGAN | BSRGAN | StableSR | DiffBIR | PASD | SeeSR | DreamClear | OSEDiff | SUPIR | FaithDiff | PnP-Flow | FlowSR | LP | Ours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ 50 ] | [ 61 ] | [ 49 ] | [ 26 ] | [ 57 ] | [ 53 ] | [ 2 ] | [ 52 ] | [ 60 ] | [ 7 ] | [ 30 ] | [ 54 ] | [ 46 ] | |||
| RealPhoto60 | PaQ-2-PiQ \,{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | 69.04 | 63.38 | 64.40 | 71.88 | 69.97 | 73.77 | 75.84 | 73.41 | 74.42 | 75.27 | 72.78 | 73.82 | 73.44 | 78.38 |
| MANIQA \,{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | 0.5094 | 0.3759 | 0.4456 | 0.6253 | 0.5290 | 0.6057 | 0.6166 | 0.5989 | 0.6165 | 0.6527 | 0.6176 | 0.6348 | 0.6320 | 0.6425 | |
| MUSIQ \,{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | 59.29 | 45.46 | 57.89 | 63.67 | 64.53 | 70.80 | 70.46 | 70.44 | 70.26 | 72.74 | 70.08 | 71.82 | 70.96 | 74.81 | |
| CLIPIQA+ \,{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | 0.4389 | 0.3397 | 0.4214 | 0.4935 | 0.4786 | 0.5691 | 0.5273 | 0.5720 | 0.5528 | 0.5932 | 0.5795 | 0.5842 | 0.5856 | 0.7861 | |
| RealSR | MANIQA \,{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | 0.3656 | 0.3660 | 0.3465 | 0.4182 | 0.3855 | 0.5189 | 0.4337 | 0.4052 | 0.4296 | 0.4893 | 0.4910 | 0.5232 | 0.5308 | 0.6205 |
| Metrics | GT | LQ | Real-ESRGAN [ 50 ] | BSRGAN [ 61 ] | StableSR [ 49 ] | DiffBIR [ 26 ] | SeeSR [ 53 ] | DreamClear [ 2 ] | SUPIR [ 60 ] | FaithDiff [ 7 ] | Ours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | 52.72% | 7.54% | 13.19% | 12.04% | 19.87% | 26.21% | 30.07% | 22.45% | 31.78% | 36.45% | 42.23% |
| Recall | 56.67% | 7.59% | 13.68% | 12.33% | 20.31% | 27.90% | 33.09% | 23.50% | 41.57% | 46.74% | 49.75% |
| LPIPS {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\downarrow} | DISTS {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\downarrow} | FID {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\downarrow} | MANIQA {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | MUSIQ {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | CLIPIQA {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\uparrow} | Infer-Compute {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\downarrow} | Parameters {\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\downarrow} | |
| LR w/o Text Caption | 0.3856 | 0.1468 | 20.02 | 0.6542 | 72.98 | 0.7212 | / | / |
| LR w/ Text Caption | 0.3721 | 0.1406 | 19.82 | 0.6658 | 74.21 | 0.7389 | / | / |
| Direct Adding | 0.4223 | 0.1847 | 28.39 | 0.5796 | 69.14 | 0.6863 | / | 612M / 5.1% |
| ControlNet | 0.4056 | 0.1663 | 24.73 | 0.6172 | 71.20 | 0.6917 | / | 3.3B / 27.5% |
| UMMF | 0.3721 | 0.1406 | 19.82 | 0.6658 | 74.21 | 0.7389 | / | 58.0M / 0.5% |
| Aesthetic | 0.3872 | 0.1662 | 23.25 | 0.6224 | 72.57 | 0.7128 | / | / |
Image Restoration
Image restoration uses computational methods to recover useful visual content from noisy, blurred, low-resolution, or otherwise degraded images.
See all 372 papers