S3-PnP: Plug-and-Play Denoising for Scientific Imaging with Self-Supervised Score Priors
Authors: Yukun Cui, Jiangshe Zhang, Shuang Xu, Lilun Deng, Haowen Bai, Tao Feng, Haotong Qin, Konrad Schindler, +1 more
Organizations: Xi’an Jiaotong University · Northwestern Polytechnical University · Nanyang Technological University · Tsinghua University · Hong Kong Polytechnic University · ETH Zürich
Modern image restoration methods increasingly rely on large-scale supervised training, yet clean targets are often prohibitively difficult to obtain in scientific imaging modalities such as hyperspectral imaging (HSI) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Plug-and-play ADMM (PnP-ADMM) with pretrained diffusion priors offers a promising alternative, but the learned prior distribution can mismatch both the target scientific image distribution and the distribution of ADMM denoiser inputs induced by dual feedback. To mitigate these mismatches, we propose S3-PnP, a self-supervised plug-and-play restoration framework that learns a score prior directly from observation-derived ADMM intermediate states, without clean training targets or externally pretrained weights. Specifically, the learned score corrects the input to the analytical prior update, combining observation-driven corrections with analytical regularization. We further analyze the convergence and reconstruction error of the corrected ADMM algorithm assuming an ideal score and quadratic data fidelity. Experiments on reference-guided HSI restoration, single-image HSI denoising, and MRI denoising demonstrate consistent improvements over competing methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Two sources of mismatch when using pretrained image priors in scientific imaging: differences between the pretraining and target image domains, and differences between score-model training inputs and ADMM denoiser inputs.
Figure 2: Training and inference of S 3 -PnP. Purple arrows indicate full-space learning with Ps=0 , Pg=I , and βs=0 . Orange arrows indicate structure-guided learning: Ds is trained and frozen, and its correction is enabled to collect a new state training set for Dg . At inference, active corrections are evaluated at the same ADMM input and combined before a single analytical prior update. Snowflakes denote frozen networks.
Gaussian Mean
Mixed Mean
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
R-PNN + HIR-Diff
30.83
0.7226
8.80
22.55
29.83
0.7139
11.44
31.40
HIR-Diff + SwinIR
32.42
0.7431
7.00
19.42
29.76
0.6776
11.33
34.18
HIR-Diff + R-PNN
35.32
0.9199
6.08
15.35
33.12
0.8995
9.75
29.67
PWRCTV + PLRDiff
36.13
0.8675
6.23
21.54
32.76
0.7747
13.59
153.69
PWRCTV + SwinIR
35.55
0.8773
4.66
14.65
33.80
0.8403
9.90
160.43
Table 1: Reference-guided HSI restoration on Dongying. Best in bold; second best underlined.
Gaussian Mean
Mixed Mean
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
BM4D
33.95
0.8214
3.61
9.18
24.56
0.4833
17.50
68.67
HLRTF
34.94
0.7733
3.07
8.97
31.23
0.7944
27.69
117.96
RCTV
28.59
0.5180
7.34
19.50
34.01
0.8741
5.49
16.13
DDS2M
39.97
0.9504
1.40
4.21
29.79
0.8536
13.12
53.51
LRTFR
37.24
0.9020
1.78
6.17
30.84
0.8442
27.00
114.55
Table 2: Single-image HSI denoising on Qingpu. Best in bold; second best underlined.
BrainWeb
M4Raw
Method
3%
5%
7%
T1
T2
FLAIR
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
Noise2Self
31.22
0.8613
30.40
0.8396
29.49
0.7952
29.10
0.8537
28.17
0.8095
28.94
0.8150
Noise2Void
32.11
0.8810
30.40
0.8522
29.23
0.8110
31.24
0.8671
30.45
0.8392
30.80
0.8288
Noisier2Noise
34.38
0.8964
31.37
0.8341
28.90
0.7410
31.18
0.8675
30.55
0.8435
31.17
0.8356
R2R
34.02
0.8011
32.03
0.7879
29.50
0.7292
30.82
0.8552
30.48
0.8329
30.97
0.8187
Table 3: MRI denoising. Best in bold; second best underlined.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparisons on Dongying (GNI), Qingpu (G50), BrainWeb (T1, 7% noise), and M4Raw (T1), from top to bottom. Enlarged regions and corresponding error maps are shown below each reconstruction.
Figure 4: PSNR gains over analytical ADMM at the same prior setting, varying τ in (a)–(b) and c in (c)–(d). In (b), solid curves denote structure-guided correction and the dashed curve denotes full-space correction at τ=0.105 ; the horizontal axis scales their respective reference gains. BrainWeb results average three development slices per condition.
Figure 5: Controlled experiments with 64×64 Gaussian states and ideal scores. (a)–(c) Wide-spectrum fidelity; (d) near-matched fidelity with a theoretical lower bound on error reduction. The relative prior strength γ=b/at is fixed at 0.15 in (a)–(b) and 0.1 in (d). Shading in (c)–(d) indicates pointwise 95% confidence intervals.
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Stage
Operation
Output size
Parameters
Input
State, guide, and condition maps
(r+4)×H×W
–
Conditioning
MLP: 129→128→128
128
33,152
Input projection
3×3 convolution
48×H×W
432r+1,776
Encoder block 1
Residual block
48×H×W
47,952
Downsampling
4×4 convolution, stride 2
96×2H×2W
73,824
Encoder block 2
Residual block
96×2H×2W
178,848
Appendix
Table 4: Architecture of one correction network. r is the number of state channels, and H×W is the input spatial size. Parameter counts include all trainable weights and biases.
Condition
K
ρ
τ
d
βs
βg
Ns
Ng
G10
4
1
0.105
0.10
0
1
–
5000
G30
8
8
0.105
0.10
0
1
–
5000
GNI
8
4
0.105
0.10
0
1
–
5000
Mix35
8
8
0.070
0.10
0.75
1.25
10000
5000
Mix55
8
4
0.070
0.10
0.75
1.25
5000
5000
Mix55-G30
8
4
0.070
0.10
0.50
0.50
5000
5000
Appendix
Table 5: HiPandas solver and correction parameters.
Condition
K
ρ
d
βs
βg
Ns
Ng
Qingpu G30
30
2
0.1
0
0.5
–
5000
Qingpu G50
30
2
0.1
0
0.75
–
6000
Qingpu G70
30
2
0.1
0
0.75
–
5000
Qingpu M30
30
2
0.1
0.125
0.5
2000
2000
Qingpu M50
30
2
0.1
0.375
0.75
3000
3000
Qingpu M70
30
2
0.1
0.1875
0.75
2000
2000
Appendix
Table 6: HSI denoising solver and correction parameters.
Condition
K
ρ
c
a
J
γσ
d
β
Ng
ηk
T1, 3%
30
2
0.1875
0.20
20
1
0.10
0.25
5000
1
T1, 5%
30
2
0.1875
0.20
20
1
0.10
0.50
5000
1
T1, 7%
30
2
0.1875
0.20
20
1
0.10
0.50
5000
1
T2, 3%
30
2
0.1875
0.20
20
1
0.10
0.25
5000
1
T2, 5%
30
2
0.1875
0.20
20
1
0.10
0.50
5000
1
T2, 7%
30
2
0.1875
0.20
20
1
0.10
0.75
5000
1
Appendix
Table 7: BrainWeb solver and correction parameters.
Contrast
K
ρ
c
a
J
γσ
d
β
Ng
ηk
T1
30
2
0.03125→0.015625
0.350→0.175
20
1.25
0.20
1.00
5000
[(k−15)/15]01
T2
30
2
0.09375
0.175
20
1.25
0.10
0.50
5000
1{k≥10}
FLAIR
30
2
0.125
0.050
20
1.25
0.10
0.50
5000
1
Appendix
Table 8: M4Raw solver and correction parameters.
Figure 6: Wide-spectrum convergence and stability. (a)–(c) Original ADMM trajectories across dimensions at γ=0.15 . (d) Additional correction strengths at 64×64 ; β>1 lies outside the theorem’s range. Growing runs stop at a prescribed numerical safety threshold. Panel (d) uses wider axis ranges.
Figure 7: Reconstruction error under wide-spectrum fidelity. Each panel fixes the state dimension; lower curves indicate better restoration. The gray curve is analytical ADMM ( β=0 ). Markers denote evaluated prior strengths, connecting segments are visual guides, and shading shows pointwise 95% intervals computed across independent test matrices. All panels share the same vertical scale.
G10
G30
GNI
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PLRDiff + HIR-Diff
34.52
0.8215
6.73
16.49
32.20
0.8115
8.96
20.36
31.01
0.7670
12.73
23.66
PLRDiff + PWRCTV
38.10
0.9445
5.42
12.22
33.43
0.9156
9.02
18.93
32.73
0.9082
12.05
21.31
SwinIR + HIR-Diff
33.88
0.8512
4.69
22.02
27.79
0.4978
10.21
33.18
27.18
0.4962
12.66
35.11
SwinIR + PWRCTV
31.66
0.7815
8.33
65.58
21.16
0.3662
29.96
422.81
22.62
0.4464
31.18
489.23
R-PNN + HIR-Diff
33.80
0.8068
6.22
17.49
29.10
0.6743
9.28
25.03
29.59
0.6866
10.90
25.12
Appendix
Table 9: Reference-guided HSI restoration on Dongying under Gaussian/GNI noise.
Mix35
Mix55
Mix55-G30
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PLRDiff + HIR-Diff
30.90
0.7649
12.30
26.04
30.70
0.7687
13.35
35.69
31.63
0.7997
11.03
34.60
PLRDiff + PWRCTV
32.58
0.9079
11.79
23.82
32.13
0.9000
12.92
34.07
32.82
0.9059
10.94
33.24
SwinIR + HIR-Diff
27.88
0.5443
12.53
34.58
27.62
0.5328
13.47
43.14
28.20
0.5456
11.84
42.82
SwinIR + PWRCTV
25.43
0.5544
27.50
393.81
23.98
0.4886
29.39
662.34
22.44
0.4233
30.17
685.00
R-PNN + HIR-Diff
30.52
0.7378
10.72
25.12
29.48
0.7004
12.24
34.86
29.48
0.7036
11.36
34.20
Appendix
Table 10: Reference-guided HSI restoration on Dongying under mixed noise.
G30
G50
G70
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
BM4D
36.44
0.8936
2.60
6.72
33.64
0.8194
3.65
9.29
31.77
0.7511
4.58
11.54
HLRTF
40.70
0.9427
1.28
3.66
34.39
0.7927
2.81
8.10
29.74
0.5845
5.11
15.13
RCTV
33.03
0.7311
4.10
10.87
27.95
0.4866
7.36
19.66
24.79
0.3364
10.55
27.95
DDS2M
41.57
0.9645
1.12
3.49
39.87
0.9507
1.40
4.21
38.47
0.9361
1.68
4.95
LRTFR
38.73
0.9235
1.39
5.11
37.11
0.9000
1.78
6.22
35.89
0.8826
2.17
7.17
Appendix
Table 11: Single-image HSI denoising on Qingpu under Gaussian noise.
M30
M50
M70
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
BM4D
22.54
0.3971
23.26
91.66
25.36
0.5140
15.60
61.07
25.77
0.5388
13.63
53.29
HLRTF
35.60
0.9123
27.83
115.44
30.84
0.8113
27.54
117.36
27.25
0.6595
27.70
121.07
RCTV
36.83
0.9183
3.88
11.74
33.64
0.8730
5.51
16.32
31.55
0.8311
7.07
20.32
DDS2M
29.88
0.8430
13.20
53.63
29.78
0.8552
13.12
53.49
29.70
0.8625
13.05
53.41
LRTFR
32.70
0.8733
27.13
112.10
30.62
0.8417
26.95
114.20
29.20
0.8176
26.94
117.34
Appendix
Table 12: Single-image HSI denoising on Qingpu under mixed noise.
G30
G50
G70
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
BM4D
35.02
0.8637
2.54
5.58
32.40
0.7786
3.49
7.57
30.66
0.7046
4.32
9.28
HLRTF
39.91
0.9502
1.25
3.29
34.77
0.8508
2.25
5.86
30.51
0.6857
3.84
9.86
RCTV
33.03
0.7797
3.48
7.65
27.97
0.5534
6.25
13.88
24.79
0.3981
9.01
20.04
DDS2M
39.75
0.9448
1.22
3.35
38.07
0.9250
1.47
4.02
36.61
0.9001
1.73
4.73
LRTFR
35.57
0.8309
1.61
5.70
34.18
0.7808
1.98
6.77
33.26
0.7510
2.31
7.54
Appendix
Table 13: Single-image HSI denoising on Xiong’an under Gaussian noise.
M30
M50
M70
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
SAM ↓
ERGAS ↓
BM4D
22.38
0.3987
18.29
43.57
24.96
0.5014
12.33
28.99
25.21
0.5095
10.85
25.93
HLRTF
33.61
0.8941
24.44
81.55
30.12
0.8326
24.06
81.94
27.70
0.7451
24.21
83.75
RCTV
34.86
0.8863
3.77
9.16
31.92
0.8267
5.28
12.47
30.00
0.7754
6.75
15.83
DDS2M
29.05
0.8231
10.05
26.26
28.93
0.8250
9.92
26.17
28.81
0.8212
9.81
26.11
LRTFR
29.98
0.7704
23.74
79.14
28.30
0.7195
23.51
80.07
27.23
0.6901
23.48
81.42
Appendix
Table 14: Single-image HSI denoising on Xiong’an under mixed noise.
T1
T1 3%
T1 5%
T1 7%
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
Noise2Void
35.41
0.9062
34.88
0.9425
32.97
0.8833
Noise2Self
33.17
0.7933
33.23
0.9600
30.81
0.7435
Noisier2Noise
37.49
0.9261
34.52
0.9049
31.90
0.7828
R2R
36.20
0.8040
34.83
0.8113
32.26
0.7534
Appendix
Table 15: MRI denoising on BrainWeb across nine contrast–noise conditions.
T1
T2
FLAIR
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
Noise2Void
31.24
0.8671
30.45
0.8392
30.80
0.8288
Noise2Self
29.10
0.8537
28.17
0.8095
28.94
0.8150
Noisier2Noise
31.18
0.8675
30.55
0.8435
31.17
0.8356
R2R
30.82
0.8552
30.48
0.8329
30.97
0.8187
Noise2Score
31.23
0.8444
30.48
0.8139
31.00
0.7975
Appendix
Table 16: MRI denoising on M4Raw across three contrasts.
Figure 8: Reference-guided HSI restoration on Dongying: G30 (top) and Mix55 (bottom).
Figure 9: Single-image HSI denoising on Qingpu: G30 (top) and G50 (bottom).
Figure 10: Single-image HSI denoising on Xiong’an: G70 (top) and M70 (bottom).
Figure 11: MRI denoising on BrainWeb (T2, 7% noise).
Figure 12: MRI denoising on M4Raw: T2, T2, and FLAIR from top to bottom.
In this paper, we introduce SP3, a novel Plug-and-Play algorithm that accelerates maximum a posteriori image restoration by replacing denoisers with Spherical Encoders (SE) as generative priors. SP3 approximates the intractable proximal prior step by utilizing the SE tightly structured latent space as a robust projection onto the natural image manifold. Alternating this projection with a closed-form data-consistency step, via Half-Quadratic Splitting, achieves stable convergence without requiring gradient computation during inference. This unique formulation unlocks "anytime" restoration capabilities, producing sharp, plausible images from the first iteration. Evaluations across a variety of image restoration tasks demonstrate that SP3 achieves perceptual quality comparable to state-of-the-art zero-shot diffusion and flow methods while being 3-630× faster.
Sean Man, Ron Raphaeli, Matan Kleiner +1
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology · Independent Researcher
Plug-and-play (PnP) methods are widely used for solving imaging inverse problems by incorporating a denoiser into optimization algorithms. Score-based diffusion models (SBDMs) have recently demonstrated strong generative performance through a denoiser trained across a wide range of noise levels. Despite their shared reliance on denoisers, it remains unclear how to systematically use SBDMs as priors within the PnP framework without relying on reverse diffusion sampling. In this paper, we establish a score-based interpretation of PnP that justifies using pretrained SBDMs directly within PnP algorithms. Building on this connection, we introduce a stochastic generative PnP (SGPnP) framework that injects noise to better leverage the expressive generative SBDM priors, thereby improving robustness in severely ill-posed inverse problems. We provide a new theory showing that this noise injection induces optimization on a Gaussian-smoothed objective and promotes escape from strict saddle points. Experiments on challenging inverse tasks, such as multi-coil MRI reconstruction and large-mask natural image inpainting, demonstrate consistent improvement over conventional PnP methods and achieve performance competitive with diffusion-based solvers.
Chicago Y. Park, Edward P. Chandler, Yuyang Hu +4
University of Wisconsin–Madison · Washington University in St. Louis · Los Alamos National Laboratory
Plug-and-Play diffusion prior (PnPDP) frameworks have emerged as a powerful paradigm for solving imaging inverse problems by treating pretrained generative models as modular priors. However, we identify a critical flaw in prevailing PnP solvers (e.g., based on HQS or Proximal Gradient): they function as memoryless operators, updating estimates solely based on instantaneous gradients. This lack of historical tracking inevitably leads to non-vanishing steady-state bias, where the reconstruction fails to strictly satisfy physical measurements under heavy corruption. To resolve this, we propose Dual-Coupled PnP Diffusion (DC-PnPDP), which restores the classical dual variable to provide integral feedback, progressively enforce agreement between the data-consistency and prior. However, this rigorous geometric coupling introduces a secondary challenge: the accumulated dual residuals exhibit spectrally colored, structured artifacts that violate the Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) assumption of diffusion priors, causing severe hallucinations. To bridge this gap, we introduce Spectral Homogenization (SH), a frequency-domain adaptation mechanism that modulates these structured residuals into statistically compliant pseudo-AWGN inputs. This effectively aligns the solver's rigorous optimization trajectory with the denoiser's valid statistical manifold. Extensive experiments on CT and MRI reconstruction demonstrate that our approach resolves the bias-hallucination trade-off, achieving state-of-the-art fidelity with significantly accelerated convergence. The code is available at https://github.com/duchenhe/DC-PnPDP
Chenhe Du, Xuanyu Tian, Qing Wu +4
ShanghaiTech University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University