Blind face restoration (BFR) aims to recover high-quality facial images from degraded inputs, yet its inherently ill-posed nature leads to ambiguous and uncontrollable solutions. Recent diffusion-based BFR methods improve perceptual quality but remain uncontrollable, whereas text-guided face editing enables attribute manipulation without reliable restoration. To address these issues, we propose A2BFR, an attribute-aware blind face restoration framework that unifies high-fidelity reconstruction with prompt-controllable generation. Built upon a Diffusion Transformer backbone with unified image-text cross-modal attention, A2BFR jointly conditions the denoising trajectory on both degraded inputs and textual prompts. To inject semantic priors, we introduce attribute-aware learning, which supervises denoising latents using facial attribute embeddings extracted by an attribute-aware encoder. To further enhance prompt controllability, we introduce semantic dual-training, which leverages the pairwise attribute variations in our newly curated AttrFace-90K dataset to enforce attribute discrimination while preserving fidelity. Extensive experiments demonstrate that A2BFR achieves state-of-the-art performance in both restoration fidelity and instruction adherence, outperforming diffusion-based BFR baselines by -0.0467 LPIPS and +52.58% attribute accuracy, while enabling fine-grained, prompt-controllable restoration even under severe degradations.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Left: Prompt-guided specific restoration avoids uncontrolled solutions in ill-posed BFR. Middle: Compared with restore-only and restore-then-edit pipelines, A 2 BFR achieves faithful yet attribute-aligned restoration. Right: Quantitative results show that A 2 BFR simultaneously achieves superior fidelity and attribute accuracy, outperforming all compared restoration and editing methods.
Datasets
Size
Attributes
Fine-grained Captions
Construction Pipeline
SeqDeepFake [ 37 ]
49,920
5
✗
Talk-to-Edit
SEED [ 66 ]
91,526
6
✗
UltraEdit, SDXL…
AttrFace-90K
180,424
12
✓
FlowEdit + SD3.5
Table 1: Comparison of facial editing datasets. AttrFace-90K provides the largest scale, the most diverse attributes, and the most powerful construction pipeline among existing datasets.
Figure 2: AttrFace-90K overview. (a) Data construction pipeline: starting from HQ faces (FFHQ/ReFace-HQ/CelebA-HQ), we extract features, classify attributes, build prompts with Qwen3, and perform attribute editing with FlowEdit+SD3.5, followed by post-checks. (b) Attribute distribution: percentage of each controllable attribute across 90K pairs. (c) Image pair examples: source–target pairs for typical attributes.
Figure 3: Overview of our A2 BFR. Left: The semantic dual-training (SDT) strategy pairs a single LQ input with two GT images driven by different attribute prompts, and enforces maximal separation between their latent representations in the semantic space. This encourages the model to learn attribute-discriminative, prompt-aligned behaviors. Right: At inference time, A2 BFR takes an LQ image and a user-specified prompt, and generates an attribute-aligned, high-quality restoration through denoising process.
Metrics/Methods
GFPGAN
CodeFormer
VQFR
DR2
DifFace
DAEFR
VSPBFR
StableSR
DiT4SR
A2 BFR
AttrFace-90K-Test
♠ IDS [ 6 ] ↑
0.3242
0.3337
0.3030
0.2782
0.2852
0.3012
0.2995
0.3289
0.3048
0.3495
♠ FID [ 14 ] ↓
20.62
20.31
18.46
43.92
27.22
23.61
26.82
25.91
18.10
18.69
♠ LPIPS [ 60 ] ↓
0.3070
0.3154
0.3123
0.3676
0.3398
0.2934
0.3585
0.3396
0.3442
0.2679
♡ HyperIQA [ 40 ] ↑
0.7380
0.7160
0.7156
0.6419
0.6127
0.7365
0.6815
0.6953
0.7609
0.8084
♡ TopIQ [ 3 ] ↑
0.7956
0.7740
0.7482
0.5929
0.5938
0.7760
0.7061
0.7393
0.8499
0.8748
Table 2: Quantitative results of restoration quality comparison on AttrFace-90K-Test, CelebRef-HQ-Test [ 25 ] , LFW-Test [ 15 ] , Wider-Test [ 53 ] , and WebPhoto-Test [ 49 ] . Best and second best performance are highlighted. ↑ means higher is better, ↓ means lower is better. ♠ denotes reference-based fidelity metrics, while ♡ represents no-reference quality metrics.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of restoration quality on CelebRef-HQ-Test . A 2 BFR restores sharper textures and more natural facial details while preserving better fidelity, surpassing diffusion- and diffusion-based baselines.
Attribute
Fidelity
Quality
Human
Methods/Metrics
SC ↑
AA ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
IDS ↑
CP-IDS ↑
HyperIQA ↑
MANIQA ↑
MUSIQ ↑
Pref. (%)
StableSR [ 47 ]
92.49
0.3278
0.3330
21.64
0.2830
0.7619
0.6948
0.5178
71.35
2.4
+ Step1X-Edit [ 29 ]
93.73
0.7757
0.3889
23.93
0.2052
0.5331
0.7491
0.6030
74.71
2.4
+ Flux.1-Kontext [ 22 ]
94.74
0.8395
0.4726
36.36
0.1698
0.3546
0.6152
0.4648
72.81
4.3
+ Qwen-Image-Edit [ 51 ]
94.64
0.7490
0.4573
35.16
0.1577
0.3059
0.5718
0.4196
73.47
10.2
DiT4SR [ 9 ]
93.97
0.5714
0.3649
24.69
0.2916
0.5630
0.7595
0.6525
76.33
7.3
Table 3: Quantitative results of attribute alignment comparison on AttrFace-90K-Test . Best and second best performance are highlighted.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of attribute alignment on AttrFace-90K-Test . The top row shows one-stage restoration results, while the second and third rows display the results of the two-stage restore-then-edit pipeline. A 2 BFR (bottom) achieves better visual quality with accurate attribute control under the provided prompts.
Figure 6: Customizable restoration outputs of A 2 BFR. Each column showcases diverse results generated from the same input image by applying different facial attributes, demonstrating the model’s ability to perform user-directed BFR. The “Template Prompt” presents “A photo of a human face”, while * denotes out-of-domain attributes.
Components
Attribute
Fidelity
Quality
AAL
SDT w/o Ldual
SDT w Ldual
SC ↑
AA ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
HyperIQA ↑
MANIQA ↑
MUSIQ ↑
✗
✗
✗
94.59
0.4078
0.2948
25.21
0.7600
0.5892
74.43
✓
✗
✗
94.80
0.6214
0.2954
22.17
0.7561
0.6439
75.64
✗
✓
✗
94.63
0.6417
0.2889
23.76
0.7829
0.6572
75.91
✓
✓
✗
94.77
0.7757
0.2926
22.84
0.7842
0.6505
75.94
✓
✗
✓
94.70
0.8536
0.2863
21.52
0.7908
0.6628
76.22
Table 4: Ablation study of AAL and SDT on AttrFace-90K-Test . Bold indicates the best performance and underline indicates the second best.
Figure 7: Qualitative results of ablation study. It can be observed that the responsiveness to attribute texts is progressively enhanced as more components are activated.
Attribute
Fidelity
Quality
Methods/Metrics
SC ↑
AA ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
HyperIQA ↑
MANIQA ↑
MUSIQ ↑
DiT4SR† (FFHQ)
94.23
0.4730
0.3570
25.79
0.6826
0.5283
71.33
DiT4SR† (AttrFace)
94.36
0.6308
0.3189
21.30
0.7069
0.5867
71.53
A2 BFR (Ours)
94.70
0.8536
0.2863
21.52
0.7908
0.6628
76.22
Table 5: Quantitative comparison of face restoration models fine-tuned on FFHQ and AttrFace-90K datasets.
Blind face restoration remains a persistent challenge due to the inherent ill-posedness of reconstructing holistic structures from severely constrained observations. Current generative paradigms, while capable of synthesizing realistic facial details, remain limited by the under-constrained nature of blind restoration, where severely degraded inputs can be mapped to plausible yet identity-inconsistent outputs. To address this issue, we present Pref-Restore, a hierarchical framework for deterministic BFR. Our design is organized around three complementary principles: (1) Semantic Information Augmentation, where an auto-regressive semantic branch converts image and text cues into structured tokens that provide a stable high-level anchor; (2) Texture-level Fidelity Alignment, where the diffusion generator is trained under this anchor to recover identity-relevant details; and (3) Fidelity-constrained Preference Optimization, where a face-aware reward refines the diffusion trajectory while controlling the quality-fidelity trade-off. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world benchmarks show that Pref-Restore achieves state-of-the-art performance, with stronger identity-sensitive fidelity and lower restoration uncertainty across repeated sampling. Systematic ablations further attribute these gains to the proposed hierarchical design, showing the necessity of staged training, the robustness of the text pathway under deployment-faithful conditions, and the benefit of fidelity-constrained preference optimization.
Zhengjian Yao, Jiakui Hu, Kaiwen Li +5
Biomedical Engineering Department, College of Future Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Codebook-based blind face restoration (BFR) often suffers from ambiguous conditioning features and a fragile prediction mechanism under severe degradation. To address these challenges, we propose GeoMAR, a framework designed to unleash geometrically aligned features with masked autoregressive (MAR) refinement for robust face restoration. For feature conditioning, we introduce a dual-input extraction pipeline to extract component-based geometric descriptions with explicit, spatially faithful anchors. These textual priors are integrated with low-quality (LQ) features via an Aligned Geometric Priors Injector, which employs a KV-Q exchange strategy to generate geometrically aligned features. For prediction mechanism, we reformulate the one-step mapping into a multi-step MAR process. This coarse-to-fine generation progressively refines complex facial regions based on increasingly reliable context. Experiments on one synthetic and three real-world benchmarks demonstrate that GeoMAR achieves highly competitive perceptual quality and coherent visual structures compared with existing methods. The code is available at https://github.com/BRL-SYSU/GeoMAR.git.
Lu Gan, Hanyu Yan, Chaofeng Chen +2
School of Artificial Intelligence, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China
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