Video restoration in real-world scenarios is challenged by heterogeneous degradations, where static architectures and fixed inference pipelines often fail to generalize. Recent agent-based approaches offer dynamic decision making, yet existing video restoration agents remain limited by insufficient quality perception and inefficient search strategies. We propose VQ-Jarvis, a retrieval-augmented, all-in-one intelligent video restoration agent with sharper vision and faster thought. VQ-Jarvis is designed to accurately perceive degradations and subtle differences among paired restoration results, while efficiently discovering optimal restoration trajectories. To enable sharp vision, we construct VSR-Compare, the first large-scale video paired enhancement dataset with 20K comparison pairs covering 7 degradation types, 11 enhancement operators, and diverse content domains. Based on this dataset, we train a multiple operator judge model and a degradation perception model to guide agent decisions. To achieve fast thought, we introduce a hierarchical operator scheduling strategy that adapts to video difficulty: for easy cases, optimal restoration trajectories are retrieved in a one-step manner from a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) library; for harder cases, a step-by-step greedy search is performed to balance efficiency and accuracy. Extensive experiments demonstrate that VQ-Jarvis consistently outperforms existing methods on complex degraded videos.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the challenges in existing enhancement comparison and the construction of VSR-Compare. (a) Existing quality understanding models (e.g., Q-Insight) fail to reliably capture subtle differences between enhancement results (Acc. < 60%). (b) Data domain and degradation distributions of our VSR-Compare. (c) Training sample from VSR-Compare.
Figure 2: Overview of VSR-Compare pipeline, including degradation-aware pair construction, human machine collaborative annotation, and the data distribution of VSR-Compare. The outputs of multiple MLLMs are first filtered to remove inconsistent selections, and their reasoning results are fused; together with additional human expert annotation and verification, they jointly form the comparison pairs.
Figure 3: Overview of the proposed VQ-Jarvis framework. Given a degraded input video, a degradation perception model first estimates the video quality score and degradation attributes. Based on the predicted score, the agent adaptively selects between two restoration strategies: one-step retrieval, which retrieves an optimal restoration trajectory from a quality-aligned RAG library using prior reconstruction experience, and step-wise greedy search, which sequentially applies and compares multiple restoration operators across sub-tasks.
Dataset
Method
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
CLIPIQA ↑
MUSIQ ↑
MANIQA ↑
DOVER ↑
Ewarp ↓
VQ-Insight ↑
UDM10
SeedVR2 Wang et al. (2026a)
0.265
0.153
0.347
50.09
0.523
0.327
2.56
50.20
MGLD-VSR Yang et al. (2024a)
0.310
0.191
0.464
58.12
0.556
0.326
3.31
53.40
DOVE Chen et al. (2025b)
0.265
0.174
0.537
60.64
0.510
0.477
2.22
57.40
FlashVSR Zhuang et al. (2025)
0.288
0.175
0.521
65.90
0.612
0.468
2.83
59.60
DOVER-guide Wu et al. (2023)
0.276
0.175
0.503
64.27
0.548
0.611
3.70
58.80
Ours
0.288
0.178
0.538
66.88
0.595
0.479
2.25
60.20
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on UDM10 and YouHQ40 between our VQ-Jarvis and other competitive methods. Overall, our method outperforms all single-operator approaches and surpasses methods that rely on traditional metric DOVER for selection. Best and second-best results are highlighted in red and blue , respectively.
Group
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
MANIQA ↑
CLIPIQA ↑
MUSIQ ↑
Ewarp ↓
DOVER ↑
Group1
VRT Liang et al. (2024)
15.71
0.471
0.551
0.281
0.386
0.165
33.84
15.67
0.159
X-Restormer Chen et al. (2024b)
15.45
0.585
0.469
0.266
0.354
0.162
32.28
5.75
0.168
Random Choice
16.92
0.552
0.412
0.214
0.421
0.301
52.47
9.86
0.342
Qwen3-MoE Bai et al. (2025)
17.83
0.568
0.338
0.187
0.496
0.358
58.91
8.12
0.417
Ours
18.70
0.584
0.340
0.163
0.582
0.416
64.35
7.01
0.507
Group2
VRT Liang et al. (2024)
22.61
0.686
0.455
0.201
0.484
0.224
41.81
22.58
0.389
Table 2: Quantitative comparison under 3 multi-degradation settings (Group1, Group2, Group3) on our constructed benchmark.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison between our VQ-Jarvis and other methods. The time profile of each video are shown below.
Degradation
Qwen3-VL-8B
Qwen3-MoE
Gemini3 Pro
Ours
Dark
56.07
54.20
58.34
83.83
Rain
92.31
89.71
91.02
96.40
Blur
67.61
63.24
69.15
94.61
Compression
58.30
57.77
60.48
87.47
Noise
75.51
66.18
71.62
91.35
Low-Resolution
41.30
53.36
56.74
94.83
Table 3: Degradation detection accuracy (%) comparison between our VQ-Jarvis and other methods.
Method
DISTS ↓
MANIQA ↑
Ewarp ↓
DOVER ↑
Time (s) ↓
CLIP-RAG
0.192
0.553
3.02
0.396
12.44
Ours-RAG
0.166
0.589
2.88
0.426
12.44
Ours-Greedy
0.157
0.608
2.72
0.442
42.65
Ours
0.163
0.603
2.80
0.454
17.88
Table 4: Ablation study on the key components of our VQ-Jarvis.
Model
LSVQ-Test (PLCC / SRCC)
LSVQ-1080p (PLCC / SRCC)
LIVE-VQC (PLCC / SRCC)
KonViD-1k (PLCC / SRCC)
Fast-VQA Wu et al. (2022)
0.878 / 0.874
0.810 / 0.765
0.815 / 0.769
0.857 / 0.859
Minimalist-VQA Sun et al. (2024)
0.872 / 0.880
0.818 / 0.769
0.812 / 0.765
0.861 / 0.859
DOVER Wu et al. (2023)
0.886 / 0.888
0.828 / 0.787
0.819 / 0.771
0.883 / 0.890
Modular-VQA Wen et al. (2024)
0.891 / 0.894
0.844 / 0.791
0.825 / 0.783
0.884 / 0.878
Q-Align Wu et al. (2024b)
0.882 / 0.883
0.833 / 0.758
0.813 / 0.777
0.876 / 0.865
Q-Instruct Wu et al. (2024a)
0.580 / 0.602
0.640 / 0.644
0.673 / 0.660
0.520 / 0.492
Table 5: PLCC / SRCC comparisons on natural video quality assessment benchmarks.
Method
Color
Noise
Artifact
Blur
Temporal
Overall
PLCC
SRCC
PLCC
SRCC
PLCC
SRCC
PLCC
SRCC
PLCC
SRCC
PLCC
SRCC
NIQE Mittal et al. (2012)
0.2368
0.3273
0.1417
0.2682
0.1649
0.3006
0.1870
0.3236
0.1630
0.2777
0.2019
0.3192
VIDEVAL Tu et al. (2021a)
0.6943
0.6922
0.6514
0.6912
0.7370
0.7440
0.7637
0.7610
0.7123
0.7174
0.7307
0.7310
RAPIQUE Tu et al. (2021b)
0.6330
0.6203
0.5607
0.6048
0.6276
0.6258
0.6717
0.6572
0.5429
0.5554
0.6501
0.6379
VSFA Li et al. (2019)
0.7837
0.7617
0.7278
0.7635
0.8170
0.8006
0.8001
0.7772
0.7018
0.7276
0.7929
0.7730
GSTVQA Chen et al. (2021)
0.7761
0.7747
0.7448
0.7883
0.8187
0.8121
0.8202
0.8101
0.7093
0.7533
0.7825
0.7834
Table 6: Performance comparison of different quality dimensions on the FineVQ dataset. PLCC and SRCC are reported. Best and second-best results are highlighted.
Module / Operator
Task
Symbol
Time (s)
Decision and Perception Overhead
Degradation Perception Model
All
Tdet
2.45
Multiple Operator Judge Model
All
Tcmp
2.81
RAG Retrieval
All
Trag
0.35
Deraining Operators (30 × 180p videos)
RainMamba
Deraining
T1,1
0.56
Table 7: Runtime breakdown of different components and restoration operators in VQ-Jarvis.
Threshold τ
DISTS ↓
MANIQA ↑
Ewarp ↓
DOVER ↑
Time (s) ↓
τ=2.4
0.165
0.592
2.86
0.430
13.95
τ=2.6 (Ours)
0.163
0.603
2.80
0.454
17.88
τ=3.0
0.160
0.600
2.78
0.446
29.04
τ=3.6
0.159
0.607
2.78
0.444
39.93
Table 8: Sensitivity analysis of the pre-defined threshold score τ in VQ-Jarvis.
Case
Restoration Order
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
MANIQA ↑
CLIPIQA ↑
MUSIQ ↑
Ewarp ↓
DOVER ↑
(a)
Rain + Dark + (BNC + SR)
0.245
0.141
0.461
0.392
56.025
1.51
0.571
(b)
Dark + Rain + (BNC + SR)
0.264
0.144
0.422
0.360
50.345
2.14
0.568
(c)
(BNC + SR) + Rain + Dark
0.332
0.178
0.468
0.310
52.210
1.93
0.452
(d)
Dark + BNC + FI
0.349
0.166
0.455
0.305
49.557
1.04
0.459
(e)
FI + Dark + BNC
0.325
0.168
0.473
0.331
50.537
1.65
0.442
(f)
Dark + FI + BNC
0.332
0.171
0.475
0.345
51.339
1.31
0.445
Table 9: Quantitative comparison under different degradation orderings.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Visualized results of our VQ-Jarvis and other competing methods on multi-degradation video restoration methods.
Figure 6: Visualized results of the paired comparison results of our VQ-Jarvis.
Figure 7: Visualized results of the video quality scoring and degradation detection using our VQ-Jarvis.
Prompt for MLLM Expert: You will see two videos represented by sampled frames. Treat the first as Video A and the second as Video B. Decide which is better. Output exactly: Answer: < Video A, Video B, Tie > .
Prompt for Multiple Order Judge Model: Video A and Video B are results from two video enhancement methods. Explain and justify whether Video A or Video B is better. You should think from the following aspects: (1) Visual quality, (2) temporal consistency, (3) dynamic degree.
Prompt for Video Scoring: Please rate the quality of this video with a score accurate to two decimal places. The range of quality score is between 1-5. Explain the reasoning process concisely from spatial quality, temporal quality, and dynamic degree.
Prompt for Degradation Detection: Detect whether each degradation exists in this video. Return the result in < answer > … < /answer > as JSON with keys: “dark", “rain", “blur", “compression", “noise", “low-resolution", “low-frame".
Appendix
Table 10: Prompts for the MLLM comparison experts and for the VQ-Jarvis.
Figure 8: GUI used for human annotations.
Figure 9: Low-light enhancement paired comparison training samples of our VSR-Compare.
Figure 10: Super-resolution paired comparison training samples of our VSR-Compare.
Real-world image restoration is challenging due to complex and interacting mixed degradations. Recent agent-based approaches address this problem by composing multiple task-specific restoration tools. However, empirical analysis reveals that their performance is fundamentally limited by implicitly constrained planning spaces and the lack of coordination among independently pretrained tools. To address these issues, we propose OPERA (Optimized Planning-Execution Restoration Agent), a framework that jointly optimizes restoration planning and tool execution in an end-to-end manner. On the planning side, OPERA uses reinforcement learning to directly optimize tool composition over a combinatorial plan space, with the final restoration quality as the reward. On the execution side, OPERA introduces agent-guided co-training of restoration tools, enabling them to learn cooperative behaviors under sequential composition. Extensive experiments on multi-degradation benchmarks and real-world datasets demonstrate that OPERA consistently outperforms both all-in-one restoration models and existing agent-based methods across diverse and complex degradation scenarios.
Feng Zhu, Shuyang Xie, Yihan Zeng +2
Harbin Institute of Technology · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab
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
Diffusion-based video restoration recovers realistic details, but its practical deployment is limited by two efficiency bottlenecks: costly VAE encoding and decoding, and the quadratic cost of full self-attention in diffusion transformers (DiTs). This paper presents FastVR, a streaming video restoration framework built on a one-step diffusion model, which delivers strong restoration quality and temporal consistency while processing 1080p video at 11 FPS on a single H20 GPU. To improve inference efficiency, FastVR combines a lightweight VAE with chunk-wise causal attention, which substantially reduces the computational cost. During training, it further adopts velocity consistency regularization and continuous trajectory learning, which improve restoration quality. Extensive experiments show that FastVR is more efficient than the evaluated diffusion baselines while achieving state-of-the-art performance on synthetic and real-world benchmarks. We hope that this work supports further progress in the community.