Nighttime photography is severely degraded by light pollution induced by pervasive artificial lighting in urban environments. After long-range scattering and spatial diffusion, unwanted artificial light overwhelms natural night luminance, generates skyglow that washes out the view of stars and celestial objects and produces halos and glow artifacts around light sources. Unlike nighttime dehazing, which aims to improve detail legibility through thick air, the objective of light pollution removal is to restore the pristine night appearance by neutralizing the radiative footprint of ground lighting. In this paper we introduce a physically-based degradation model that adds to the previous ones for nighttime dehazing two critical aspects; (i) anisotropic spread of directional light sources, and (ii) skyglow caused by invisible surface lights behind skylines. In addition, we construct a training strategy that leverages large generative model and synthetic-real coupling to compensate for the scarcity of paired real data and enhance generalization. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed formulation and learning framework substantially reduce light pollution artifacts and better recover authentic night imagery than prior nighttime restoration methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Examples of light-polluted images and our restoration results, showing effective light pollution removal with a natural nighttime appearance. Examples of light pollution and restoration photographs.
Figure 2. Overview of the synthetic light-pollution generation pipeline used for dataset construction. From a clean image J , we successively add skyline-induced sky glow Psky , component-wise ALSF-based directional scattering PALSF , and APSF-based isotropic scattering PAPSF to obtain the polluted image I .
Figure 3. Examples of our Dataset. (a) Variations of one clean image with simulated light pollution under randomized APSF and ALSF parameters. (b) Additional synthetic polluted samples. (c) Real severely light-polluted nighttime images in the test set.
Figure 4. Illustration of skyline-induced sky glow, where hidden ground lights behind the skyline create a visible glow region in the sky.
Figure 5. Overview of our pipeline. The polluted image I and clean target J are encoded into latents; the noisy clean latent is concatenated with the polluted latent and fed into a Q-LoRA fine-tuned Flux.1-Kontext model to predict the clean latent.
Method
Task
PSNR
SSIM
Jin’s (ACM MM 23) ( Jin et al., 2023 )
Dehaze
20.7015
0.7757
Cong’s (CVPR 24) ( Cong et al., 2024 )
Dehaze
18.1638
0.5701
Lin’s (AAAI 25) ( Lin et al., 2025 )
Dehaze
16.6349
0.5942
Jin’s (ECCV 22) ( Jin et al., 2022 )
LES
19.3228
0.8020
Dille’s (ECCV 24) ( Dille et al., 2024 )
HDR
20.1549
0.7783
Dai’s (TPMAI 24) ( Dai et al., 2024 )
Deflare
19.3228
0.8713
Table 1. Objective metrics comparisons of ours and other methods. The best two scores are shown in Bold and underline . "LES" means "Light Effects Suppression" and "LPR" means "Light Pollution Removal".
Figure 6. Qualitative comparison of different methods. Specific tasks are marked in small grey text , "LES" means "Light Effects Suppression" and "LPR" means "Light Pollution Removal".
Figure 7. Backbone ablation showing better overexposed detail recovery with the generative backbone than with UNet.
Exp.
PALSF
Psky
PSNR
SSIM
(a)
✗
✗
22.0269
0.8177
(b)
✓
✗
23.1589
0.8116
(c)
✗
✓
23.6253
0.8341
(d)
✓
✓
26.1728
0.8517
Table 2. Ablation studies of ALSF kernel and Sky Glow. The best two scores are shown in Bold and underline .
No.
Method
Average Rank
Jin’s (ACM MM 23) ( Jin et al., 2023 )
4.67
Cong’s (CVPR 24) ( Cong et al., 2024 )
6.38
Lin’s (AAAI 25) ( Lin et al., 2025 )
5.11
Jin’s (ECCV 22) ( Jin et al., 2022 )
5.18
Dille’s (ECCV 24) ( Dille et al., 2024 )
3.92
Dai’s (TPMAI 24) ( Dai et al., 2024 )
3.96
Table 3. Average Rankings of Methods. The best average ranks are shown in Bold .
Figure 8. Comparison with instruction-based image editing models, showing that task-specific fine-tuning is needed for severe light pollution removal.
Figure 9. Top-1 ranking rates for different methods.
Figure 10. Visualization of the ALSF construction process.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 11. 3D bar chart illustrating the distribution of ranks assigned to each method in the user study.
Figure 12. Qualitative comparison of different methods. Specific tasks are marked in small grey text , "LES" means "Light Effects Suppression" and "LPR" means "Light Pollution Removal". Zoom in for better view.
Figure 13. Qualitative comparison of different methods. Specific tasks are marked in small grey text , "LES" means "Light Effects Suppression" and "LPR" means "Light Pollution Removal". Zoom in for better view.
Figure 14. Qualitative comparison of different methods. Specific tasks are marked in small grey text , "LES" means "Light Effects Suppression" and "LPR" means "Light Pollution Removal". Zoom in for better view.
Figure 15. Qualitative comparison of different methods. Specific tasks are marked in small grey text , "LES" means "Light Effects Suppression" and "LPR" means "Light Pollution Removal". Zoom in for better view.
In nighttime circumstances, it is challenging for individuals and machines to perceive their surroundings. While prevailing image restoration methods adeptly handle singular forms of degradation, they falter when confronted with intricate nocturnal scenes, such as the concurrent presence of weather and low-light conditions. Compounding this challenge, the lack of paired data that encapsulates the coexistence of low-light situations and other forms of degradation hinders the development of a comprehensive end-to-end solution. In this work, we contribute complex nighttime scene datasets that simulate both illumination degradation and other forms of deterioration. To address the complexity of night degradation, we propose an integration of an illumination-guided module embedded in the diffusion model to guide the illumination restoration process. Our model can preserve texture fidelity while contending with the adversities posed by various degradation in low-light scenarios.
Photography is the art of painting with light, yet nighttime scenes are shaped by competing degradations: intense flares obscure scene structure, while photon-limited regions collapse into noise. Conventional approaches address these factors in isolation, overlooking the fact that these degradations are fundamentally entangled. To bridge this gap, we introduce LUCID, a unified framework that reframes nighttime restoration as a continuous and controllable process rather than a fixed correction. We decompose nighttime restoration into two cooperative components: a flare disentanglement module that lifts the 'curtain' of optical artifacts to provide reliable structural guidance, and a diffusion-driven module that leverages generative priors to reconstruct clean and well-exposed imagery. Crucially, LUCID introduces explicit controllability through a novel four-mode training strategy, enabling users to steer the restoration process via classifier-free guidance (CFG) and allowing selective control over light sources and their associated flare and ghosting artifacts, while also supporting high dynamic range (HDR) reconstruction through continuous exposure control. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LUCID consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods across diverse real-world nighttime scenarios.
Nighttime image dehazing faces a more complex degradation pattern than its daytime counterpart, as haze scattering couples with low illumination, non-uniform lighting, and strong light interference. Under limited supervision, this complexity aggravates domain drift and training instability, since target-domain samples are scarce while naively introducing external data may weaken adaptation due to distribution mismatch. This paper presents our solution to the NTIRE 2026 Night Time Image Dehazing Challenge, built as a unified framework that integrates domain-aligned data construction, stage-wise training, and inference-time enhancement. Specifically, a pre-trained CLIP visual encoder screens candidate external samples by similarity to construct training data closer to the target domain. NAFNet is then trained in two stages, first adapting to the target domain and then expanding to broader degradation patterns. At inference time, TLC, x8 self-ensemble, and weighted snapshot fusion are combined to improve output stability. Rather than relying on complex network redesign, the proposed framework offers a practical and effective pipeline for nighttime image dehazing.
Xining Ge, Weijun Yuan, Gengjia Chang +2
Hangzhou Dianzi University · Jinan University · Hefei University of Technology +2