Optical flow models trained on high-quality data often degrade severely when confronted with real-world corruptions such as blur, noise, and compression artifacts. To overcome this limitation, we formulate Degradation-Aware Optical Flow, a new task targeting accurate dense correspondence estimation from real-world corrupted videos. Our key insight is that the intermediate representations of image restoration diffusion models are inherently corruption-aware but lack temporal awareness. To address this limitation, we lift the model to attend across adjacent frames via full spatio-temporal attention, and empirically demonstrate that the resulting features exhibit zero-shot correspondence capabilities. Based on this finding, we present DA-Flow, a hybrid architecture that fuses these diffusion features with convolutional features within an iterative refinement framework. DA-Flow substantially outperforms existing optical flow methods under severe degradation across multiple benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Qualitative comparison of DA-Flow with baselines [ 31 , 37 , 25 ] on Spring benchmark [ 20 ] . Under severe degradations, existing optical flow methods fail to recover reliable correspondences, whereas our DA-Flow accurately estimates the underlying motion.
Figure 2: Overall architecture of DA-Flow.
Figure 3: Comparison of zero-shot geometric correspondence between Baseline and Lifting features. (a) Top-10 layers ranked by timestep-averaged EPE (lower is better). Lifting consistently achieves lower EPE across all ranks. (b) EPE over denoising steps for the top-4 layers of each method. Baseline features show high sensitivity to the denoising step, while Lifting features remain stable across the denoising steps.
Model
Sintel
Spring
TartanAir
EPE ↓
1px ↓
3px ↓
5px ↓
EPE ↓
1px ↓
3px ↓
5px ↓
EPE ↓
1px ↓
3px ↓
5px ↓
RAFT [ 31 ]
10.693
62.91
37.24
28.63
3.944
39.82
18.65
11.98
9.487
75.17
42.96
30.04
SEA-RAFT [ 37 ]
10.185
59.56
34.46
26.15
2.703
41.51
19.31
12.11
8.316
77.85
45.76
32.15
FlowSeek [ 25 ]
10.241
64.08
40.71
31.83
2.861
41.53
19.16
12.18
7.694
76.96
45.20
32.00
DA-Flow
6.912
55.80
28.10
20.91
2.207
30.95
13.87
8.91
8.866
72.35
37.61
25.40
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on Sintel, Spring, and TartanAir. All methods are evaluated using End-Point Error (EPE) and outlier rates at 1px, 3px, and 5px thresholds. Best and second best results are highlighted.
Figure 4: Qualitative results on Sintel [ 3 ] .
Figure 5: Qualitative results on Spring [ 20 ] .
Figure 6: Qualitative results on TartanAir [ 35 ] .
Step
Dataset
Metric
Method
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Sintel [ 3 ]
EPE ↓
Baseline*
7.4145
7.4542
7.5076
7.4703
7.4124
7.4897
7.5243
7.5752
7.5709
7.6883
DA-Flow
7.0210
6.7809
6.7196
6.7160
6.7433
6.7605
6.8029
6.8736
7.0641
7.6397
1px ↓
Baseline*
59.47
59.26
59.50
59.26
59.60
60.16
59.85
60.80
61.02
61.79
DA-Flow
57.04
56.81
56.39
55.97
55.52
55.12
54.79
54.72
54.64
57.03
Spring [ 20 ]
EPE ↓
Baseline*
2.3269
2.3457
2.2535
2.3073
2.2158
2.2030
2.2036
2.2148
2.2066
2.2343
Table 2: Ablation on feature source across denoising steps. Baseline* uses the same DA-Flow architecture but extracts features from the full-attention model before finetuning. Bold indicates the better result at each step.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Comparison of layer-wise average EPE over timesteps.
Figure 8: Comparison of zero-shot geometric correspondence between post-AdaNorm and Query/Key features. (a) Top-10 layers ranked by timestep-averaged EPE (lower is better). (b) EPE over denoising steps for the top-4 layers of each method. (c) EPE on Sintel [ 3 ] over denoising steps after training the flow network. DA-Flow uses Query/Key features.
Figure 9: Zero-shot geometric correspondence of Query/Key features from FlashVSR [ 43 ] .
Step-wise Results of DA-Flow
Method
Dataset
Metric
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Average
RAFT [ 31 ]
SEA-RAFT [ 37 ]
FlowSeek [ 25 ]
Sintel [ 3 ]
EPE ↓
7.021
6.781
6.720
6.716
6.743
6.761
6.803
6.874
7.064
7.640
6.912
10.69
10.18
10.24
1px ↓
57.04
56.81
56.39
55.97
55.52
55.12
54.79
54.72
54.64
57.03
55.80
62.91
59.56
64.08
3px ↓
28.58
28.06
27.67
27.52
27.56
27.71
27.88
28.14
28.40
29.52
28.10
37.24
34.46
40.71
5px ↓
21.33
20.80
20.49
20.39
20.43
20.57
20.80
21.01
21.29
21.98
20.91
28.63
26.15
31.83
Spring [ 20 ]
EPE ↓
2.290
2.212
2.207
2.203
2.201
2.204
2.201
2.193
2.192
2.172
2.207
3.944
2.703
2.861
Appendix
Table 3: Timestep-wise quantitative results of DA-Flow on Sintel [ 3 ] , Spring [ 20 ] , and TartanAir [ 35 ] . Best and second best results are highlighted.
Metric
Method
EPE ↓
1px ↓
3px ↓
5px ↓
RAFT*
7.033
56.99
28.39
20.70
DA-Flow
6.912
55.80
28.10
20.91
Appendix
Table 4: Average comparison on Sintel between RAFT* and DA-Flow. Lower is better for all metrics.
Configuration
Metric
Upsample
CNN Encoder
EPE ↓
1px ↓
3px ↓
5px ↓
(a)
Bilinear
X
7.2236
59.49
29.55
21.59
(b)
DPT
X
8.0745
64.67
30.07
21.95
(c)
Bilinear
✓
7.1230
57.84
28.96
21.14
(d)
DPT
✓
6.9122
55.80
28.10
20.91
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation study on the architectural components of DA-Flow. Row (d) corresponds to DA-Flow. Bold indicates the best result. Lower is better for all metrics.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DOVER ↑
Ewarp∗↓
MGLD
22.50
0.626
0.2661
47.41
4.532
DiT4SR
19.55
0.511
0.335
74.97
29.50
DA-Flow + MGLD
23.47
0.646
0.215
57.96
3.483
Appendix
Table 6: Video restoration results on YouHQ40. Note that Ewarp∗=Ewarp×10−3 . Bold indicates the best result.
Figure 10: Comparison of temporal consistency in video restoration.
Existing optical flow methods broadly follow two paradigms: iterative optimization and diffusion-based estimation. Iterative methods, exemplified by RAFT, achieve high accuracy through recurrent refinement, but remain challenged by large displacements and complex motion. Diffusion-based methods introduce generative modeling and show promise in such ambiguous regions. However, existing diffusion models usually denoise the entire dense flow field from Gaussian noise, including simple regions where reliable motion can already be estimated by a lightweight network. This increases the denoising burden and may cause slow convergence and unstable training. To address this issue, we introduce FlowPainter, a diffusion-based optical flow framework that reformulates dense-flow generation as confidence-guided soft inpainting. FlowPainter employs a lightweight confidence-aware network to predict a rough flow and a pixel-wise confidence mask, distinguishing reliable simple regions from uncertain hard regions. The resulting simple-flow prior is used for confidence-based initialization and further injected into iterative denoising through confidence-gated residual guidance. With dynamically decaying guidance strength, FlowPainter stabilizes early denoising while preserving the flexibility of the diffusion model for late-stage detail refinement. Extensive experiments on public benchmarks, including Sintel, KITTI, and Spring, show that FlowPainter achieves strong accuracy under comparable training settings and converges more efficiently than existing diffusion-based optical flow methods, with notable gains on challenging benchmark splits. Our approach offers a practical way to integrate reliable discriminative priors with diffusion-based refinement for optical flow estimation. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/mya012/FlowPainter.
Yuang Meng, Chenyang Wu, Xianshun Liu +7
VCIP, CS, Nankai University · OPPO Research Institute · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Optical flow estimation is a fundamental task in dynamic scene understanding and computer vision. While recent deep models achieve impressive accuracy on clean benchmarks, their robustness to common visual and temporal degradations remains insufficiently explored. To address this gap, we establish a real-video-based spatiotemporal corruption benchmark suite that complements rendered and mixed-source robustness benchmarks, systematically evaluating two complementary aspects of visual perception: domain robustness and motion-distribution robustness. We construct two targeted benchmarks: KITTI Flow Corruptions (KITTI-FC) for dynamic outdoor scenes and GoPro Flow Corruptions (GoPro-FC) for diverse first-person-view complex motions. Both benchmarks use captured source data and apply 24 controlled, predominantly algorithmic corruptions encompassing digital, illumination, weather, noise, blur, and video artifacts. To quantify robustness, we use two complementary axes: the GT-free output-stability error Rs and the GT-based accuracy degradation Rd, together with their clean-error-normalized variants. We systematically evaluate 33 model variants from 17 representative optical flow methods. Our results show that, under the evaluated corruption schedules, models exhibit greater vulnerability to local structural information loss (e.g., JPEG compression and spatter) than to global perceptual distortions (e.g., fog and saturation). We further find that in-domain fine-tuning does not guarantee relative robustness and that no single current method dominates across all tested source and motion settings. Our work provides a controlled diagnostic framework for assessing optical flow robustness and developing reliable perception systems in complex environments. Code and benchmark resources are publicly available at https://github.com/ZhonghuaYi/optical_flow_robustness_benchmark.
Generative flow models offer powerful priors learned from large-scale natural images, but directly adapting them to restoration tasks such as motion deblurring causes severe fidelity degradation, as their training objective is inherently misaligned with restoration. We present DeblurFlow, a framework that resolves this misalignment by reformulating the flow trajectory itself: we replace the noise endpoint with the blur observation, which makes the underlying vector field coincide with the residual error between blur and clean images. Under this formulation, the standard flow matching loss naturally takes the form of a residual loss, allowing pretrained flow models to be optimized under restoration-aligned objectives via LoRA adaptation. This formulation further enables a dual-expert sampling strategy: a fidelity expert provides a high-fidelity initialization, e.g., PSNR 33.69 dB, and DeblurFlow enhances perceptual quality with only a marginal fidelity reduction to 33.05 dB, whereas directly applying a generative model on top of a fidelity expert decreases PSNR to 27.60 dB. To make this practical, we further introduce r-space, a latent space tailored for residual decoding rather than image reconstruction, which reduces encoder-decoder cost by up to 9×over standard VAE latents. Extensive experiments on GoPro, HIDE, RealBlur, and RWBI demonstrate that DeblurFlow achieves strong restoration fidelity and perceptual realism, while remaining computationally practical.