TTTIR: Unlocking Instance-Specific State Evolution via Test-Time Training for Image Restoration
Organizations: Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen · Tsinghua University · Peng Cheng Laboratory · École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne ·
Abstract
Image restoration is inherently challenging due to the diverse and highly input-dependent nature of real-world degradations. While recent architectures like Transformers and state-space models have advanced the field, they predominantly rely on static, globally shared parameters, which struggle to fully accommodate instance-specific degradation patterns. Test-Time Training (TTT) offers a promising paradigm for generating data-dependent operators, yet its standard self-supervised inner loop lacks the explicit guidance required to transition degraded features toward clean structures. To address this, we propose TTTIR, a novel framework that reformulates image restoration as an instance-specific state evolution process. Specifically, we design Progressive State Sequence Generation (PSSG) to construct complementary spatial-frequency target states (defining what to recover), and State Transition Evolution (STE) to adapt lightweight transition operators via a restoration-oriented TTT inner loop (determining how the features should evolve). Extensive experiments demonstrate that TTTIR consistently outperforms state-of-the-art models across multiple image restoration benchmarks, achieving dynamic instance-specific recovery with favorable computational scalability. The code is available at https://github.com/Elysiaaaaaaaa/TTTIR.git.
Figures & tables
| Methods | Category | LOL-v1 | LOL-v2-Real | LOL-v2-Syn | Param (M) | FLOPs (G) | |||
| PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | ||||
| Kind [ 54 ] | CNN-based | 20.87 | 0.7995 | 17.54 | 0.6695 | 22.62 | 0.9041 | 8.02 | 34.99 |
| Kind++ [ 53 ] | CNN-based | 17.97 | 0.8042 | 19.08 | 0.8176 | 21.17 | 0.8814 | 8.27 | 2970.5 |
| FourLLIE [ 44 ] | Frequency-based | 20.99 | 0.8071 | 23.45 | 0.8450 | 24.65 | 0.9192 | 0.12 | 4.07 |
| UHDFour [ 28 ] | Frequency-based | 22.89 | 0.8147 | 27.27 | 0.8579 | 23.64 | 0.8998 | 17.54 | 4.78 |
| DMFourLLIE [ 51 ] | Frequency-based | 22.98 | 0.8273 | 26.40 | 0.8765 | 25.74 | 0.9308 | 0.41 | 1.70 |
| Methods | Test100 | Rain100H | Rain100L | Test2800 | Test1200 | Average | ||||||
| PSNR {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | SSIM {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | PSNR {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | SSIM {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | PSNR {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | SSIM {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | PSNR {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | SSIM {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | PSNR {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | SSIM {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | PSNR {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | SSIM {\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\uparrow} | |
| DANet [ 25 ] | 23.96 | 0.839 | 23.00 | 0.791 | 29.51 | 0.906 | 30.32 | 0.903 | 29.99 | 0.888 | 27.36 | 0.865 |
| Uformer [ 46 ] | 23.87 | 0.815 | 22.43 | 0.700 | 28.39 | 0.883 | 29.71 | 0.886 | 28.65 | 0.856 | 26.61 | 0.828 |
| ALformer [ 24 ] | 24.41 | 0.844 | 25.10 | 0.807 | 29.39 | 0.903 | 31.36 | 0.916 | 30.40 | 0.897 | 28.13 | 0.874 |
| NAFNet [ 5 ] | 25.75 | 0.845 | 26.76 | 0.813 | 31.27 | 0.925 | 31.71 | 0.918 | 30.62 | 0.892 | 29.22 | 0.879 |
| MFDNet [ 45 ] | 25.90 | 0.870 | 27.06 | 0.850 | 32.76 | 0.944 | 31.92 | 0.925 | 31.15 | 0.909 | 29.76 | 0.899 |
| Methods | Raindrop-A | Raindrop-B | Average | |||
| PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | |
| DANet [ 25 ] | 29.54 | 0.914 | 25.28 | 0.812 | 27.41 | 0.863 |
| Uformer [ 46 ] | 28.99 | 0.903 | 25.02 | 0.803 | 27.00 | 0.853 |
| ALformer [ 24 ] | 29.11 | 0.911 | 25.11 | 0.809 | 27.11 | 0.860 |
| NAFNet [ 5 ] | 29.81 | 0.907 | 25.33 | 0.806 | 27.57 | 0.857 |
| MFDNet [ 45 ] | 28.57 | 0.882 | 24.53 | 0.766 | 26.55 | 0.824 |
| Methods | RESIDE-6K | Haze4K | Average | |||
| PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | |
| Uformer [ 46 ] | 26.29 | 0.925 | 26.43 | 0.937 | 26.36 | 0.931 |
| LKD [ 37 ] | 25.42 | 0.925 | 27.39 | 0.938 | 26.41 | 0.932 |
| Dehazeformer [ 41 ] | 26.25 | 0.931 | 27.45 | 0.946 | 26.85 | 0.939 |
| MB-TaylorFormer [ 39 ] | 26.28 | 0.923 | 26.34 | 0.933 | 26.31 | 0.928 |
| MixDehazeNet [ 36 ] | 26.62 | 0.939 | 27.34 | 0.945 | 26.98 | 0.942 |
| Methods | Rain100H | Rain100L | Complexity | |||
| PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | Params (M) | FLOPs (G) | |
| Baseline | 28.06 | 0.8457 | 34.66 | 0.9578 | 1.15 | 12.37 |
| baseline+PSSG | 29.44 | 0.875 | 36.34 | 0.968 | 1.55 | 23.57 |
| baseline+STE | 29.35 | 0.878 | 37.15 | 0.973 | 1.35 | 14.21 |
| w/o PSSC | 29.38 | 0.8761 | 36.19 | 0.9669 | 2.17 | 28.61 |
| w/o PFSC | 30.11 | 0.8866 | 37.11 | 0.9719 | 2.00 | 22.42 |
| Rain100H | Rain100L | Complexity | ||||
| PSNR | SSIM | PSNR | SSIM | Params (M) | FLOPs (G) | |
| 1 | 29.91 | 0.883 | 36.68 | 0.971 | 1.92 | 24.36 |
| 2 | 30.51 | 0.894 | 37.17 | 0.973 | 2.29 | 31.11 |
| 3 | 30.55 | 0.893 | 37.43 | 0.972 | 2.66 | 37.85 |
Image Restoration
Image restoration uses computational methods to recover useful visual content from noisy, blurred, low-resolution, or otherwise degraded images.
See all 375 papers