IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, VOL. 25, NO.
1, JANUARY 2018
Training-Free, Single-Image Super-Resolution Using
a Dynamic Convolutional Network
Aritra Bhowmik, Suprosanna Shit, and Chandra Sekhar Seelamantula, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—The typical approach for solving the problem of
single-image super-resolution (SR) is to learn a nonlinear mapping
between the low-resolution (LR) and high-resolution (HR) repre-
sentations of images in a training set. Training-based approaches
can be tuned to give high accuracy on a given class of images, but
they call for retraining if the HR → LR generative model deviates
or if the test images belong to a different class, which limits their
applicability. On the other hand, we propose a solution that does
not require a training dataset. Our method relies on constructing
a dynamic convolutional network (DCN) to learn the relation be-
tween the consecutive scales of Gaussian and Laplacian pyramids.
The relation is in turn used to predict the detail at a finer scale,
thus leading to SR. Comparisons with state-of-the-art techniques
on standard datasets show that the proposed DCN approach re-
sults in about 0.8 and 0.3 dB gain in peak signal-to-noise ratio for
2× and 3× SR, respectively. The structural similarity index is on
par with the competing techniques.
Index Terms—Convolutional neural network (CNN), deep learn-
ing, dynamic convolutional network (DCN), Gaussian/Laplacian
pyramids, super-resolution (SR).
I. INTRODUCTION
INGLE-IMAGE super-resolution (SR) is an important tool
S in applications such as biomedical imaging [1], face hal-
lucination [2], etc. In single-image SR [3], [4], one infers lo-
cal image properties from the low-resolution (LR) image or
learns them over a collection of given high-resolution (HR)–LR
pairs. The learning approaches employ dictionaries or neural
networks, which capture the LR–HR association. In this letter,
we develop a technique that infers HR image features starting
from the LR image without going through the standard process
of training, obviating the need for a training dataset. Before
proceeding further, we review recent techniques that specifi-
cally tackle the single-image SR problem, and highlight their
strengths and weaknesses. Some of these techniques will be
Manuscript received June 28, 2017; revised August 17, 2017; accepted
September 4, 2017. Date of publication September 15, 2017; date of current
version November 29, 2017. The associate editor coordinating the review of
this manuscript and approving it for publication was Dr. S. Channappayya.
(Aritra Bhowmik and Suprosanna Shit contributed equally to this work and
must be treated as joint first authors). (Corresponding author: Chandra Sekhar
Seelamantula).
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian In-
stitute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India (e-mail: aritra0593@gmail.com;
suprosanna93@gmail.com; chandra.sekhar@ieee.org).
This letter has supplementary downloadable material available at http://
ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this letter are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LSP.2017.2752806
1070-9908 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
85
used for making performance comparisons. A thorough review
of single-image SR techniques is available in [5].
A. Related Literature
A landmark contribution was made recently by Yang et al.
[6], [7], who trained dictionaries for LR and HR image patches.
The key assumption is that the LR and HR patches have the same
sparse representation in respective dictionaries. The sparse rep-
resentation corresponding to an LR patch from an unseen image
is used to synthesize the corresponding HR patch, thus lead-
ing to SR. With this as the central idea, Yang et al. [8] also
developed a coupled LR/HR dictionary model optimized us-
ing a joint cost function. Kim and Kwon used kernel ridge
regression and incorporated image priors to suppress ringing
artifacts [9]. Timofte et al. proposed anchored neighborhood
regression [10] in which they solve a ridge regression prob-
lem with neighborhood constraints, leading to a closed-form
solution for the regression coefficients. This approach is fast
and leads to qualitatively the same results as the compet-
ing techniques. In [11], they developed an advanced version
of the algorithm, which learns from the patches in the local
neighborhood of the anchor patch from the training dataset
and not from the dictionary. These were by far the best per-
forming techniques before the advent of neural network SR
approaches.
Within the learning paradigm, the SR problem is essentially
posed as one of discovering the nonlinear association between
the LR and HR patches. Dong et al. used a convolutional neural
network (CNN) [12], [13] to learn the end-to-end mapping be-
tween LR and HR pairs [14], [15]. The training is data-intensive
and time-consuming, whereas the run-time complexity is low
leading to fast SR. Recently, Dong et al. proposed a threefold
acceleration strategy:
1) introducing a deconvolution layer at the end of the CNN;
2) reducing the dimensionality of the input feature; and
3) employing smaller filter sizes, all of which resulted in a
40× speed-up.
This method is referred to as fast SRCNN [16]. Shi et al.
developed an efficient subpixel CNN to perform SR [17]. The
early layers operate on the LR image, whereas the final layer
relies on subpixel convolution to upscale the image. Kim et al.
proposed a very deep CNN architecture that learns the residual
images instead of the HR image [18]. They showed that the
very deep SR technique overcomes the limitations of SRCNN.
They also proposed a method called deep recursive CNN, which
incorporates skip connections between each hidden layer and
86 IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, VOL. 25, NO. 1, JANUARY 2018

prediction layer [19]. Ledig et al. developed a perceptual-loss-

based generative adversarial network, which has been shown
to outperform the other techniques in terms of mean opinion
score [20]. Huang et al. proposed self-exemplar-based SR (Self-
ExSR) to learn the patchwise homography relation between a
given image and the self-exemplar LR image [21]. Recently,
Lai et al. proposed a deep Laplacian pyramid network architec-
ture, which consists of a feature extractor network and an image
reconstructor network [22]. The feature extractor network pre-
dicts the residual images, which are added with the correspond-
ing upsampled images produced by the image reconstruction
network.

II. PROPOSED APPROACH

Training-based SR approaches offer high accuracy on images
that belong to the same class as seen during training. By class,
we are referring to images acquired in same conditions/modality,
for example, class of natural images, class of face images, class
of magnetic resonance images, etc. However, their performance
deteriorates when images from an unseen class are given as
input1 . We address the single-image SR problem within the
framework of prediction, without the need for training. Among
the prominent SR methods reviewed in Section I-A, SelfExSR
is the only technique that does not use a training dataset. The
point-spread function (PSF) that is used to derive the LR im-
age from the HR image is used to construct the Gaussian and
Laplacian pyramids. We learn the interscale relation between
the layers of a Laplacian pyramid (see Section III) with the help
of a CNN. The network is then used to predict the Laplacian
image at a higher scale. SelfExSR follows a similar approach
in which the relationship between Gaussian pyramid levels is
learnt and then inverted to predict the HR image. Our method,
on the other hand, does not require inversion to predict the HR
image. We use the CNN as an optimization model and not as
a conventional feature extractor/classifier. We super-resolve an
image directly without having to train (which might take several
days even with the aid of graphics processing units) a network
unlike the other NN approaches. We refer to the network as
the dynamic convolutional network (DCN), which is optimized
specifically for a given LR image. The motivation lies in the dy-
namic filter network of De Brabandere et al. [23], who used such
networks to learn input-specific filters. Most learning-based SR
algorithms are intensive both with respect to the training pro-
cess and data. Furthermore, if the class of images or the PSF
changes, the networks have to be adapted or retrained for opti-
mal performance [24]. On the contrary, the proposed approach
is image-specific and does not involve training. Validations on
benchmark databases Set5 and Set14 using peak signal-to-noise
ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity index (SSIM) metrics
show that our approach compares favorably with the state-of-
the-art techniques. The implementation was carried out using
TensorFlow [25].
Fig. 1. Gaussian and Laplacian pyramids for an image, and the network
architecture for predicting the detail images. The D− components also go
through a similar network.
III. FROM LAPLACIAN PYRAMID TO SR
The Laplacian pyramid is a multiscale representation of an
image and allows for perfect reconstruction by constructing the
detail images at each scale of a Gaussian pyramid. The Laplacian
pyramid finds applications in image processing and computer
vision problems, the most recent ones being semantic segmen-
tation [26], optical flow estimation [27], deep generative models
[28], etc. We assume that the given LR image is at the immedi-
ately next coarser level of a Gaussian pyramid of the unknown
HR image. The key idea is to predict, based on interscale depen-
dencies, the finer level detail image of the Laplacian pyramid in
order to reconstruct the HR image (cf. Fig. 1).
To explain further, let the given LR image X 0 denote the
zeroth level of a Gaussian pyramid. Images at the two coarser
levels of the Gaussian pyramid (X 1 and X 2 ) are first con-
structed. Then, the upsampled (zero insertion followed by bicu-
bic interpolation [29]) images (X̂ 0 and X̂ 1 , respectively) and
the difference images in the Laplacian pyramid (D 0 and D 1 ,
respectively) are constructed. In the following analysis, bold
symbols in lowercase correspond to the vectorized versions, for
instance, x0 is the vectorized form of X 0 .
Let Li denote the downsampling matrix from (i − 1)th to ith
level, U i the upsampling matrix from ith to (i − 1)th level, Gi
and Ĝi the Gaussian blur and interpolating kernel, respectively,
at the (i − 1)th level, and di the Laplacian pyramid image at
the ith level. Using these notations, the first two levels of the
Gaussian pyramid are related as follows:

1 This aspect is illustrated in Fig. 1 of the Supplemental document. x1 = L1 G1 x0 . (1)

BHOWMIK et al.: TRAINING-FREE, SINGLE-IMAGE SR USING A DCN
The upsampled image is given by
x̂0 = Ĝ1 U 1 x1 = Ĝ1 U 1 L1 G1 x0 . (2)
Correspondingly, the difference image is computed as
d0 = x0 − x̂0 = (I 1 − Ĝ1 U 1 L1 G1 )x0 , (3)
where I 1 is the identity matrix. Similarly
d1 = (I 2 − Ĝ2 U 2 L2 G2 )x1 . (4)
From (1), (3), and (4), we get an expression for the coarser level
difference image in terms of the finer level one as
d1 = (I2 − Ĝ2 U 2 L2 G2 )L1 G1 (I1 − Ĝ1 U 1 L1 G1 )−1 d0 .
   whether a patch does contain an edge/texture (wk = 1) or does
P1
P 1 is rank-deficient and hence, not invertible, making the prob-
lem of recovering d0 given P 1 and d1 ill-posed. Also, P 1 is
a huge matrix, of size mn × mn for an m × n image. For in-
stance, for a 256 × 256 image, it would require about 16 GB of
memory only for storing P 1 considering double-precision rep-
resentation. The high demand on memory makes it impractical
to handle the image all at once. The mapping between d1 and
d0 is modeled using a DCN and the filter-sets are learnt based
on the input LR image.
A. Network Architecture
We use an L-layer CNN with the rectified linear unit (ReLU)
activation function η for modeling the nonlinearity. For mod-
erate network depths, the ReLU activation is known to over-
come the problem of vanishing gradient [30]. Since the im-
ages in the Laplacian pyramid, unlike those in the Gaussian
pyramid, contain both positive and negative values, we sepa-
rate the detail images into positive (D + 1 ) and negative compo-
nents (−D − + −
1 ). For instance, D 1 is divided into D 1 and D 1 , so
+ − + −
that D 1 = D 1 − D 1 , where D 1 , D 1  0. Next, we upsample
+ −
D+ −
1 and D 1 to get D̂ 0 and D̂ 0 , respectively, and pass them
through two CNNs. Each stage of the CNN is a tensor filter. Cor-
respondingly, for the positive-part and negative-part images, we
have the filters K + −
i and K i , respectively, for i = 1, 2, . . . , L.
+ −
These filters take the upsampled images D̂ 0 and D̂ 0 as input
and predict the detail images at the immediate finer scale result-
+ −
ing in D̃ 0 and D̃ 0 , respectively. The prediction equations are
as follows:
+ +
D̃ 0 = η(K + +
L ∗ η(· · · ∗ η(K 1 ∗ D̂ 0 ))),
− −
D̃ 0 = η(K − −
L ∗ η(· · · ∗ η(K 1 ∗ D̂ 0 ))),
where η is the ReLU activation and ∗ denotes convolution. The
+ −
positive-part prediction D̃ 0 and negative-part prediction D̃ 0
+ −
are combined to result in D̃ 0 : D̃ 0 − D̃ 0 . The cost function
measures the fidelity between the predicted detail and the true
one and is expressed, using Frobenius norm (F), as
+ −
C CNN = C CNN + C CNN = D 0 − D̃ 0 2F . (5)
B. Incorporating Regularization
Since the detail images are structured and sparse, we incor-
porate appropriate regularizers in the optimization.
87
1) Sparsity Promoting Regularization: To incorporate the
prior that the detail image is sparse, we add the 1 regularizer:
C sparsity = D̃ 0 1 .
2) Contrast Enhancing Regularization: The Laplacian pyra-
mid contains high-frequency details largely comprising texture
and edges. In order to preserve texture and edge content, local
contrast-enhancing loss-functions have been suggested by Liu
et al. [31]. We incorporate this as an additional regularizer act-
ing on the predicted HR image X̃ −1 = X̂ −1 + D̃ −1 , in a 3 × 3
patch-based fashion. Since not all patches contain edges or tex-
ture, we use a weight wk for the kth patch P k that indicates
not (wk = 0). The resulting contrast regularizer is given by
 
C contrast = − wk (X̃ −1 (pi ) − X̃ −1 (pj ))2 , (6)
k pi ,pj
where pi and pj denote the pixel coordinates in the patch. In
order to determine the 1/0 weight assignment for wk , we use a
Canny edge-map of the upsampled image X̂ −1 .
3) Smoothness Preserving Regularization: To enforce local
smoothness in regions lacking edges/texture, we add a comple-
mentary regularization functional:
 
C smoothness = wk (X̃ −1 (pi ) − X̃ −1 (pj ))2 ,
k pi ,pj
where the weights are set as 1 for smooth regions, and 0 other-
wise. The contrast regularizer has a negative sign since it has to
be maximized, but the smoothness regularizer does not since it
has to be minimized to favor a smooth reconstruction.
The total objective for learning the CNN filters is given by
C total = C CNN + λ1 C sparsity + λ2 C contrast + λ3 C smoothness ,
where {λ1 , λ2 , λ3 } are the regularization weights. We optimize
the cost C total with respect to the CNN filters using the ADAM
optimization technique [32]. Denote the optimized filter-set as
+ −
{K̂ i , K̂ i }. Our SR algorithm is based on the assumption that
the relationship that exists between D 1 and D 0 also holds be-
tween D 0 and D −1 . The assumption is justified given the in-
terscale correlation and recurrence of image patches [33], [34].
+ −
Therefore, we predict D̃ −1 and D̃ −1 as follows:
+  +   + + 
D̃ −1 = η K̂ L ∗ η · · · ∗ η K̂ 1 ∗ D̂ 0 , (7)
−  −   − − 
D̃ −1 = η K̂ L ∗ η · · · ∗ η K̂ 1 ∗ D̂ 0 , (8)
+ −
and construct D̃ −1 = D̃ −1 − D̃ −1 . Finally, the super-resolved
image is obtained as X̃ −1 = X̂ −1 + D̃ −1 .
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
We consider a three-layer CNN (L = 3). The first layer has
sixteen 9 × 9 filters, the second layer consists of one hundred
and twenty eight 3 × 3 filters, and the third one has eight 5 × 5
filters. We perform the SR method on the Y channel of the
YCbCr decomposition and upsample the other channels using
bicubic interpolation. We validate on two standard databases,
Set5 and Set14, which consist of image classes encompassing
88 IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, VOL. 25, NO. 1, JANUARY 2018

TABLE I
COMPARISON OF THE DCN METHOD WITH THE STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNIQUES

Dataset Set5 Set14

Metric Scale Bicubic SC SRCNN SelfeXSR DCN Bicubic SC SRCNN SelfeXSR DCN

PSNR 2× 27.93 28.17 28.370 28.49 29.56 24.46 24.86 24.78 24.85 25.40
3× 25.78 26.74 26.35 26.45 26.50 23.00 23.60 23.38 23.47 23.62
mw-PSNR 2× 27.10 27.36 27.55 27.62 28.91 24.59 24.77 24.93 25.01 25.69
3× 25.59 26.02 26.10 26.17 26.42 23.46 23.99 23.82 23.87 24.24
SSIM 2× 0.929 0.932 0.935 0.936 0.946 0.823 0.830 0.836 0.838 0.852
3× 0.889 0.908 0.900 0.901 0.899 0.767 0.791 0.783 0.786 0.796
ms-SSIM 2× 0.973 0.979 0.976 0.976 0.983 0.948 0.951 0.953 0.953 0.963
3× 0.945 0.950 0.955 0.955 0.957 0.907 0.927 0.921 0.921 0.931

The highest values are shown in boldface.

Fig. 2. Super-resolved images (2× upscaling) obtained using different meth-

ods in comparison with the ground-truth HR image. The detail images show
that the DCN prediction accuracy is high. The values displayed are PSNR
(dB)/SSIM.

landscapes, faces, and animals. We have taken HR images from

these datasets and created LR images by downsampling after
filtering with a Gaussian PSF with parameter σ. We experiment
with various values of σ: 1.5, 2, and 2.5. The results for σ = 2
are reported here and the results for the other values of σ are
provided in the Supplemental document.
Apart from the bicubic interpolation method, we compare
with three state-of-the-art SR algorithms:
1) Sparse coding using HR/LR dictionaries [6];
2) SRCNN, which learns an end-to-end mapping between
LR and HR images; and
3) SelfExSR, which learns a LR → HR mapping.
Figs. 2 and 3 show super-resolved images obtained using our
method vis-à-vis the other methods for 2× and 3× upscaling.
For the purpose of comparison, the original detail image and
the detail image predicted by the proposed DCN approach are
also shown. Table I gives the PSNR, SSIM [35], multiscale
SSIM (ms-SSIM) [36], and the morphological wavelet-based
PSNR (mw-PSNR) [37] values averaged over the two datasets.
The proposed DCN method outperforms the state-of-the-art by
about 0.6–0.8 dB in PSNR for 2×, and about 0.3 dB on the
average for 3× SR. The improvement is also observed in SSIM,
mw-PSNR, and ms-SSIM. From Figs. 2 and 3, we also observe a
visual improvement in the DCN SR results. From the results for
the other values of σ reported in the Supplemental document, we
observed that as σ increases, the margin of gain the competing
Fig. 3. An illustration of super-resolution by 3×. The values displayed are
PSNR (dB)/SSIM.
methods give over bicubic interpolation reduces. On the other
hand, the DCN has a gain margin of about 2 dB for 2× SR
over bicubic interpolation, which shows that the prediction of
the detail image is accurate. Furthermore, the gains in DCN are
higher for 2× than 3× for a fixed HR image size. This is because
as the downsampling factor increases, the effective number of
pixels available for learning the interscale dependency, which
is crucial for accurate prediction, decreases. On the other hand,
for larger images and greater downsampling factors, the results
are better, as shown in the Supplemental document.
V. CONCLUSION
We have introduced the idea of learning the detail image at
the coarser scales of a Laplacian pyramid using a DCN. The
learnt relationship is used to predict the detail at a finer scale,
leading to SR. The proposed approach does not require a training
dataset and hence is applicable to a given image from any class.
This feature is particularly attractive in resource-constrained
settings. Comparisons with state-of-the-art techniques show that
significant gains in PSNR are obtained without compromising
on the structural fidelity of the image.
BHOWMIK et al.: TRAINING-FREE, SINGLE-IMAGE SR USING A DCN
REFERENCES
[1] M. D. Robinson, S. J. Chiu, C. A. Toth, J. Izatt, J. Y. Lo, and S.
Farsiu, “Novel applications of super-resolution in medical imaging,” in
Super-Resolution Imaging. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2010,
pp. 383–412.
[2] N. Wang, D. Tao, X. Gao, X. Li, and J. Li, “A comprehensive survey to
face hallucination,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 9–30, 2014.
[3] W. T. Freeman, T. R. Jones, and E. C. Pasztor, “Example-based super-
resolution,” IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 56–65,
Mar./Apr. 2002.
[4] Y. Hu, N. Wang, D. Tao, X. Gao, and X. Li, “SERF: A simple effective
robust and fast image super-resolver from cascaded linear regression,”
IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 4091–4102, Sep. 2016.
[5] C. Y. Yang, C. Ma, and M. H. Yang, “Single-image super-resolution: A
benchmark,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2014, pp. 372–386.
[6] J. Yang, J. Wright, T. Huang, and Y. Ma, “Image super-resolution as sparse
representation of raw image patches,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis.
Pattern Recognit., 2008, pp. 1–8.
[7] J. Yang, J. Wright, T. S. Huang, and Y. Ma, “Image super-resolution
via sparse representation,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 19, no. 11,
pp. 2861–2873, Nov. 2010.
[8] J. Yang, Z. Wang, Z. Lin, S. Cohen, and T. Huang, “Coupled dictionary
training for image super-resolution,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 21,
no. 11, pp. 3467–3478, Aug. 2012.
[9] K. I. Kim and Y. Kwon, “Single-image super-resolution using sparse
regression and natural image prior,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach.
Intell., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1127–1133, Jun. 2010.
[10] R. Timofte, V. De Smet, and L. Van Gool, “Anchored neighborhood
regression for fast example-based super-resolution,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Comput. Vis., 2013, pp. 1920–1927.
[11] R. Timofte, V. De Smet, and L. Van Gool, “A+: Adjusted anchored neigh-
borhood regression for fast super-resolution,” in Proc. IEEE Asian Conf.
Comput. Vis., 2014, pp. 111–126.
[12] Y. Bengio, I. J. Goodfellow, and A. Courville, Deep Learning. Cambridge,
MA, USA: MIT Press, 2015.
[13] Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient based learning
applied to document recognition,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278–
2324, Nov. 1998.
[14] C. Dong, C. C. Loy, K. He, and X. Tang, “Learning a deep convolutional
network for image super-resolution,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis.,
2014, pp. 184–199.
[15] C. Dong, C. C. Loy, K. He, and X. Tang, “Image super-resolution using
deep convolutional networks,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.,
vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 295–307, Feb. 2016.
[16] C. Dong, C. C. Loy, and X. Tang, “Accelerating the super-resolution
convolutional neural network,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2016,
pp. 391–407.
[17] W. Shi et al., “Real-time single image and video super-resolution using
an efficient sub-pixel convolutional neural network,” in Proc. IEEE Conf.
Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2016, pp. 1874–1883.
[18] J. Kim, J. K. Lee, and K. M. Lee, “Accurate image super-resolution using
very deep convolutional networks,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis.
Pattern Recognit., 2016, pp. 1646–1654.
89
[19] J. Kim, J. K. Lee, and K. M. Lee., “Deeply-recursive convolutional net-
work for image super-resolution,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pat-
tern Recognit., 2016, pp. 1637–1645.
[20] C. Ledig et al., “Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a
generative adversarial network,” arXiv:1609.04802, May 2017.
[21] J. B. Huang, A. Singh, and N. Ahuja, “Single image super-resolution from
transformed self-exemplars,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern
Recognit., 2015, pp. 5197–5206.
[22] W.-S. Lai, J.-B. Huang, N. Ahuja, and M.-H. Yang, “Deep Laplacian
pyramid networks for fast and accurate super-resolution,” in Proc. IEEE
Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2017.
[23] B. De Brabandere, X. Jia, T. Tuytelaars, and L. Van Gool, “Dy-
namic filter networks,” in Proc. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 2016,
pp. 1–9.
[24] NTIRE SR Challenge (CVPR 2017 workshop), 2017. [Online].
Available: http://www.vision.ee.ethz.ch/ timofter/publications/Timofte-
CVPRW-2017.pdf
[25] TensorFlow, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.tensorflow.org/
[26] G. Ghiasi and C. C. Fowlkes, “Laplacian pyramid reconstruction and
refinement for semantic segmentation,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis.,
2016, pp. 519–534.
[27] A. Ranjan and M. J. Black, “Optical flow estimation using a spatial pyra-
mid network,” arXiv:1611.00850, Nov. 2016.
[28] E. L. Denton, S. Chintala, and R. Fergus, “Deep generative image models
using a Laplacian pyramid of adversarial networks,” in Proc. Neural Inf.
Process. Syst., 2015, pp. 519–534.
[29] R. Keys, “Cubic convolution interpolation for digital image process-
ing,” IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process., vol. ASSP-29, no. 6,
pp. 1153–1160, Dec. 1981.
[30] R. Pascanu, T. Mikolov, and Y. Bengio, “On the difficulty of training
recurrent neural networks,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. 2013 ser. J.
Mach. Learn. Res., 2013, vol. 28, pp. 1310–1318.
[31] F. Liu, J. Wang, S. Zhu, M. Gleicher, and Y. Gong, “Visual quality optimiz-
ing super resolution,” Comput. Graph. Forum, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 127–140,
2009.
[32] D. Kingma and J. Ba, “ADAM: A method for stochastic optimization,” in
Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent., arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG], Jan. 2017.
[33] M. Zontak and M. Irani, “Internal statistics of a single natural im-
age,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2011,
pp. 977–984.
[34] M. Zontak, I. Mosseri, and M. Irani, “Separating signal from noise using
patch recurrence across scales,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern
Recognit. 2013, pp. 1195–1202.
[35] Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality
assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE Trans.
Image Process., vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 600–612, Apr. 2004.
[36] Z. Wang, E. P. Simoncelli, and A. C. Bovik, “Multiscale structural similar-
ity for image quality assessment,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Rec. 37th Asilomar
Conf. Signals Syst. Comput., 2003, pp. 1398–1402.
[37] D. S. Stankovic, D. Kukolj, and P. L. Callet, “DIBR synthe-
sized image quality assessment based on morphological wavelets,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Qual. Multimedia Experience, Jan. 2015,
pp. 1–6.