RPT-SR: Regional Prior attention Transformer for infrared image Super-Resolution

WACV, 2026

1Yonsei University

2BK21 Graduate Program in Intelligent Semiconductor Technology

Our RPT-SR architecture: a low-resolution infrared image passes through a convolutional stem, residual Regional Prior Attention blocks, and a pixel-shuffle reconstruction head. A detailed RPA module combines local tokens and regional prior tokens, with hierarchical windows shown alongside.
Our RPT-SR architecture combines shallow feature extraction, Regional Prior Attention blocks, and a reconstruction head. We fuse learnable regional prior tokens with input-dependent local tokens to guide reconstruction across progressively larger attention windows.
0.1038M3FD ×4 · LPIPS ↓
0.1535RASMD ×4 · LPIPS ↓
×2 / ×4LWIR and SWIR super-resolution

Abstract

We address a fundamental inefficiency in infrared image super-resolution: general-purpose models repeatedly learn spatial relationships even when cameras observe fixed or nearly static scene layouts. We propose the Regional Prior attention Transformer for infrared image Super-Resolution (RPT-SR), which explicitly encodes these persistent spatial regularities in its attention mechanism. Our dual-token framework combines learnable regional prior tokens, which retain position-specific structural information across training images, with local tokens that capture the content of each input frame. We refine these fused tokens through attention and use them to guide local reconstruction within a hierarchical window structure. We evaluate our approach on long-wave infrared (LWIR) and short-wave infrared (SWIR) datasets at ×2 and ×4 magnification. Our model achieves the strongest LPIPS, MUSIQ, and MANIQA results among the methods we compare on M3FD at ×4, along with competitive performance across RASMD and TNO. Through ablation experiments, we show that combining persistent priors with frame-specific features improves perceptual reconstruction over using either token type alone. Our approach demonstrates how scene-layout information can complement dynamic image features for infrared super-resolution.

Regional Prior Attention

We exploit the spatial regularities of fixed-viewpoint infrared scenes. In forward-facing driving images, for example, roads, buildings, and sky tend to occupy recurring regions. Rather than asking our model to rediscover these relationships in every input, we encode them as a learnable, position-specific memory.

Our comparison of global self-attention, window self-attention, and Regional Prior Attention. The regional prior tokens are learned over training epochs and paired with local tokens at each layer.
We combine the flexibility of local image features with a persistent memory of scene layout. Our Regional Prior Attention uses both token types, unlike global self-attention or window attention alone.

Regional priors that persist across images

We assign learnable regional prior tokens to macro-window locations and share them across training images. We keep a separate set in each layer, allowing our attention blocks to learn structural regularities at different depths. These tokens are model parameters, not stored video frames.

Local features that adapt to each input

We generate local tokens from the current feature map using a 1×1 channel projection, a depth-wise 3×3 convolution, and average pooling. We then concatenate each local token with its regional prior along the channel dimension, combining frame-specific evidence with persistent spatial context.

Global guidance, local reconstruction

We first exchange information among the fused tokens through self-attention. We then redistribute them to their corresponding windows and apply attention jointly with the window tokens. Our hierarchical window schedule expands the spatial context in deeper layers, while residual paths and a pixel-shuffle head produce the high-resolution output.

Experimental Setup

We evaluate infrared super-resolution across two spectral domains. We train on our M3FD and RASMD splits and use TNO to assess cross-dataset generalization in the LWIR domain.

Our dataset splits
DatasetSpectrumTraining imagesTest imagesEvaluation role
M3FDLWIR18238Training and evaluation
TNOLWIR—37Cross-dataset evaluation
RASMDSWIR3,696498Training and evaluation

We construct low-resolution inputs by bicubic downsampling from 512×512 high-resolution patches: 128×128 inputs for ×4 reconstruction and 256×256 inputs for ×2. We run our ×4 experiments on an NVIDIA RTX 4090 and our ×2 experiments on an NVIDIA A6000.

Model configuration

We use four Regional Prior Attention blocks with four transformer layers per block. Our full model uses 240 channels, six attention heads, and window sizes of 8×8, 16×16, 16×16, and 32×32. For RPT-SR-Light, we use 80 channels, four heads, and windows of 8×8, 8×8, 16×16, and 16×16.

We use one fused token per attention window and train for 100,000 iterations. To accelerate the learning of regional priors, we apply a 50× learning-rate multiplier to their parameters.

Results

We evaluate perceptual similarity with LPIPS and no-reference image quality with MUSIQ and MANIQA. Lower LPIPS is better; higher MUSIQ and MANIQA are better. On M3FD at ×4, we achieve the best value for all three quality metrics among the methods we compare.

Our qualitative comparison on four M3FD infrared scenes at four-times super-resolution. Each panel shows the full scene and crops labeled HR, LR, CoRPLE, SwinIR, BSRGAN, HiT, PFT, and Ours.
Our ×4 reconstructions on M3FD preserve fine structures in pedestrians, building facades, and distant objects. We compare our outputs with high-resolution references, low-resolution inputs, and competing super-resolution methods.

M3FD · ×4 super-resolution

Our comparison with selected methods on M3FD at ×4
MethodLPIPS ↓MUSIQ ↑MANIQA ↑FLOPs (G) ↓Params (M) ↓
SwinIR0.207031.85500.1441861.270011.9000
HAT0.111839.62690.2448345.632020.5100
DAT0.108440.24580.2473245.182014.8020
RGT0.109441.30490.2482207.604013.3570
CAT-a20.107240.84210.2445278.923016.6040
PFT0.104538.98870.2451319.166019.0570
RPT-SR-Light0.137741.73720.247227.55403.9500
RPT-SR0.103841.80490.2621237.783025.8300
All 28 methods on M3FD at ×4
Our full M3FD ×4 comparison
MethodLPIPS ↓MUSIQ ↑MANIQA ↑FLOPs (G) ↓Params (M) ↓
BSRGAN0.237233.61300.1643297.730016.7000
SwinIR0.207031.85500.1441861.270011.9000
HAT0.111839.62690.2448345.632020.5100
HAT-s0.111740.07020.2438163.31309.3590
DAT0.108440.24580.2473245.182014.8020
DAT-light0.158638.16360.23829.10600.6000
DAT-S0.114840.08280.2468186.468011.2120
DAT20.142440.21490.2488186.471011.2120
RGT0.109441.30490.2482207.604013.3570
RGT-S0.124139.61060.2435160.481010.1920
CAT-a20.107240.84210.2445278.923016.6040
CAT-a0.110740.12920.2439278.918016.6040
CAT20.118639.26450.2394202.467011.9250
CAT0.133441.73530.2473278.908016.6040
SMFANet0.168236.66890.23452.94900.1970
SMFANet-plus0.165637.15010.24637.44700.4950
SRFormer0.121540.00700.2455227.404010.4290
SRFormer-light0.173935.09660.233214.13400.8400
ART0.114839.06020.2390283.757016.5460
ART-S0.180137.66910.2408203.214011.8670
PFT0.104538.98870.2451319.166019.0570
PFT-light0.157737.58970.242311.33700.6970
ATD0.135741.67950.2496310.235019.8840
ATD-light0.162537.47320.248611.66900.6610
HIT-SR0.151638.35160.237513.06600.7920
CoRPLE0.232031.07340.202237.59200.5910
RPT-SR-Light0.137741.73720.247227.55403.9500
RPT-SR0.103841.80490.2621237.783025.8300

Across datasets and scales

We obtain the lowest LPIPS among the compared methods on RASMD at ×4 and on both RASMD and M3FD at ×2. On the cross-dataset TNO evaluation at ×4, we achieve 0.2501 LPIPS, compared with 0.2475 for HAT. We see benefits from our dual-token design across the LWIR and SWIR evaluations, while TNO remains a challenging cross-dataset setting.

Our LPIPS results across datasets and scales · lower is better
DatasetScaleRPT-SRBest competing methodCompeting LPIPS
RASMD (SWIR)×40.1535CAT-A0.1548
TNO (LWIR)×40.2501HAT0.2475
RASMD (SWIR)×20.0285HAT-S0.0286
M3FD (LWIR)×20.0728ATD-light0.0730
All 24 methods on RASMD and TNO at ×4
Our full RASMD and TNO ×4 comparison
MethodRASMD LPIPS ↓TNO LPIPS ↓
BSRGAN0.18840.4095
SwinIR0.24150.4797
HAT0.15600.2475
HAT-S0.16030.2543
DAT0.16230.2534
DAT-light0.16500.3534
DAT-S0.16030.2548
RGT0.16380.2809
RGT-S0.15820.2853
CAT0.15590.3280
CAT-20.16040.2973
CAT-A0.15480.3280
CAT-A20.15770.3269
SMFANet0.17550.3609
SMFANet-plus0.17110.3574
ART0.15920.2536
ART-S0.16500.3374
PFT0.16080.3229
PFT-light0.16470.3440
ATD0.15890.3163
ATD-light0.16670.3431
HIT-SR0.16750.3442
CoRPLE0.30870.3671
RPT-SR0.15350.2501
All 13 methods on RASMD and M3FD at ×2
Our full RASMD and M3FD ×2 comparison
MethodRASMD LPIPS ↓M3FD LPIPS ↓
BSRGAN0.14570.1314
SwinIR0.03540.0732
HAT-S0.02860.0731
RGT0.03830.0746
RGT-S0.04090.0759
SMFANet0.03770.0819
SMFANet-plus0.03550.0766
ART-S0.03130.0750
PFT-light0.03640.0759
ATD-light0.03590.0730
HiT-SR0.03470.0772
CoRPLE0.03730.0766
RPT-SR0.02850.0728

Download results as JSON

Ablation Study

We isolate the contribution of each token type by comparing a local-only baseline, a static-prior-only variant, and our fused model. We achieve the best LPIPS, MUSIQ, and MANIQA values across all three datasets when we use both regional priors and local tokens.

Our attention maps for three variants: local-only Baseline on the left, static-prior-only Static in the center, and our fused model on the right.
We visualize attention at our final RPA layer on the M3FD test set. Our local-only baseline emphasizes a broad horizontal band, while the static-only variant produces diffuse patterns. With both token types, we concentrate attention on structured scene content, including vehicles and pedestrians.
Our M3FD ×4 ablation
Token configurationLPIPS ↓MUSIQ ↑MANIQA ↑
Local only0.10505741.25970.26091
Static prior only0.10532441.68720.26034
RPT-SR (both)0.10379341.80490.26213
Our TNO ×4 ablation
Token configurationLPIPS ↓MUSIQ ↑MANIQA ↑
Local only0.2504836.41540.24596
Static prior only0.2525738.28380.24903
RPT-SR (both)0.2501438.58620.25125
Our RASMD ×4 ablation
Token configurationLPIPS ↓MUSIQ ↑MANIQA ↑
Local only0.15444244.393950.223607
Static prior only0.15445744.722690.225821
RPT-SR (both)0.15354344.910270.226634

We increase computation from 231.366 to 237.783 GFLOPs and model size from 25.454 to 25.830 million parameters relative to our local-only baseline. We treat this as a trade-off between model size and perceptual reconstruction quality.

Our ablation configurations and computational cost
Token configurationFLOPs (G)Params (M)
Local only231.36625.454
Static prior only229.10025.377
RPT-SR (both)237.78325.830

Resources

We provide our implementation and configuration files in our GitHub repository. Our article is available through IEEE Xplore, with an open manuscript on arXiv. For our SWIR experiments, we use the RASMD dataset.

Scope and future work

We target fixed or nearly static viewpoints with recurring spatial structure, and our experiments use synthetic bicubic downsampling. We plan to compress the learned priors and extend our regional-prior mechanism to additional restoration tasks, including video super-resolution.

BibTeX

@inproceedings{jin2026rptsr,
  title = {{RPT-SR: Regional Prior attention Transformer for infrared image Super-Resolution}},
  author = {Jin, Youngwan and Park, Incheol and Nalcakan, Yagiz and Ju, Hyeongjin and Yeo, Sanghyeop and Kim, Shiho},
  booktitle = {2026 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)},
  pages = {5184--5193},
  year = {2026},
  publisher = {IEEE},
  doi = {10.1109/WACV61042.2026.00503},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV61042.2026.00503}
}

Youngwan Jin, Incheol Park, Yagiz Nalcakan, Hyeongjin Ju, Sanghyeop Yeo, Shiho Kim. RPT-SR: Regional Prior attention Transformer for infrared image Super-Resolution. 2026 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pp. 5184–5193, 2026. DOI: 10.1109/WACV61042.2026.00503