PnP-Flow: Plug-and-Play Image Restoration with Flow Matching
S\'egol\`ene Martin, Anne Gagneux, Paul Hagemann, Gabriele Steidl

TL;DR
This paper introduces PnP-Flow, a novel image restoration method combining plug-and-play denoisers with flow matching models, achieving state-of-the-art results efficiently across various inverse imaging tasks.
Contribution
It proposes a new algorithm that integrates flow matching models into the PnP framework, enabling efficient and effective image restoration.
Findings
Superior performance on denoising, super-resolution, deblurring, and inpainting.
Computationally efficient and memory-friendly approach.
Outperforms existing PnP and flow matching methods.
Abstract
In this paper, we introduce Plug-and-Play (PnP) Flow Matching, an algorithm for solving imaging inverse problems. PnP methods leverage the strength of pre-trained denoisers, often deep neural networks, by integrating them in optimization schemes. While they achieve state-of-the-art performance on various inverse problems in imaging, PnP approaches face inherent limitations on more generative tasks like inpainting. On the other hand, generative models such as Flow Matching pushed the boundary in image sampling yet lack a clear method for efficient use in image restoration. We propose to combine the PnP framework with Flow Matching (FM) by defining a time-dependent denoiser using a pre-trained FM model. Our algorithm alternates between gradient descent steps on the data-fidelity term, reprojections onto the learned FM path, and denoising. Notably, our method is computationally efficient…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Poster
1. Low memory usage, making it suitable for high-resolution images. 2. Consistently performs well across multiple tasks, showing stable PSNR and SSIM improvements.
1. The writing quality needs Improvement. Certain explanations lack clarity, particularly in describing the algorithmic process, e.g., the function F. 2. The details of the proposed method are insufficient. 3. The experiment section should be improved. Please refer to the details below.
1. The method is training-free which makes it computationally practical. 2. The method achieves SOTA results compared to existing flow-based methods.
1. My major concern is the lack of comparison to recent zero-shot methods based on a pre-trained diffusion model such as DDNM [1] and DPS [2]. 2. The proposed method is non-blind (assume the full knowledge of the degradation model) which limits its applicability. [1] Wang et al. Zero-Shot Image Restoration Using Denoising Diffusion Null-Space Model. ICLR 2023 [2] Chung et al. Diffusion Posterior Sampling for General Noisy Inverse Problems. ICLR 2023
1, It proposes a design a time-dependent denoiser based on a pre-trained velocity field v learned through Flow Matching 2, This denoiser is integrated into an adapted Forward-Backward Splitting PnP framework that cycles through a gradient step on the data-fidelity term, an interpolation step and a denoising step 3, Being computationally efficient and memory-friendly via the use of ODE
1, Why the percpetual metrics are missing? From the visual results, it also seems that the results tend to be blurry. What’s the underlying reason? Is it due to the gradient step or the interpolation step, or something else? 2, In addition, one of the advantages of these generative method is its high perceptual quality, but this method seems to have achieved good distortion performance. How about the results of employing the same end-to-end U-Net model as a simple baseline (for example, using
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Image Processing Techniques · Advanced Vision and Imaging · Image and Signal Denoising Methods
MethodsPnP · Inpainting
