LFSRDiff: Light Field Image Super-Resolution via Diffusion Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diffusion models have become a rising star in image super-resolution (SR) tasks. However, it is not trivial to apply diffusion models for light field (LF) image SR, which requires maintaining the high-quality visual appearance of each sub-aperture image (SAI) and the angular consistency between the different SAIs. This paper proposes the first diffusion-based LF image SR model, namely LFSRDiff, by incorporating the LF disentanglement mechanism and residual modeling. Specifically, we introduce a disentangled U-Net (Distg U-Net) for diffusion models, enabling improved extraction and fusion of the spatial and angular information in LF images. Furthermore, we leverage residual modeling in diffusion to learn the residual between the upsampled low-resolution and the ground truth high-resolution, which significantly accelerates model training and yields superior results compared to direct learning. Extensive experiments conducted on the five datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, which can produce realistic SR results and achieve the highest perceptual metric in terms of LPIPS. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/chaowentao/LFSRDiff.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it