“Zero-Shot” Super-Resolution using Deep Internal Learning
Assaf Shocher∗

arXiv:1712.06087v1 [cs.CV] 17 Dec 2017

∗

Nadav Cohen†

Michal Irani∗

Dept. of Computer Science and Applied Math, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
†
School of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey
Project Website: http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/∼vision/zssr/

nally supervised1 methods perform extremely well on data
satisfying the conditions they were trained on, their performance deteriorates significantly once these conditions are
not satisfied.
For example, SR CNNs are typically trained on highquality natural images, from which the low-resolution (LR)
images were generated with a specific predefined downscaling kernel (usually a Bicubic kernel with antialiasing
– MATLAB’s default imresize command), without any distracting artifacts (sensor noise, non-ideal PSF, image compression, etc.), and for a predefined SR scaling-factor (usually ×2, ×3 or ×4; assumed equal in both dimensions).
Fig. 2 shows what happens when these conditions are not
satisfied, e.g., when the LR image is generated with a nonideal (non-bicubic) downscaling kernel, or contains aliasing
effects, or simply contains sensor noise or compression artifacts. Fig. 1 further shows that these are not contrived cases,
but rather occur often when dealing with real LR images –
images downloaded from the internet, images taken by an
iPhone, old historic images, etc. In those ‘non-ideal’ cases,
SotA SR methods often produce poor results.
In this paper we introduce “Zero-Shot” SR (ZSSR),
which exploits the power of Deep Learning, without relying on any prior image examples or prior training. We exploit the internal recurrence of information within a single
image and train a small image-specific CNN at test time,
on examples extracted solely from the LR input image itself
(i.e., internal self-supervision). As such, the CNN can be
adapted to different settings per image. This allows to perform SR on real images where the acquisition process is unknown and non-ideal (see example results in Figs. 1 and 2).
On ‘non-ideal’ images, our method outperforms externallytrained SotA SR methods by a large margin.
The recurrence of small pieces of information (e.g.,
small image patches) across scales of a single image,

Abstract
Deep Learning has led to a dramatic leap in SuperResolution (SR) performance in the past few years. However, being supervised, these SR methods are restricted to
specific training data, where the acquisition of the lowresolution (LR) images from their high-resolution (HR)
counterparts is predetermined (e.g., bicubic downscaling),
without any distracting artifacts (e.g., sensor noise, image
compression, non-ideal PSF, etc). Real LR images, however, rarely obey these restrictions, resulting in poor SR results by SotA (State of the Art) methods. In this paper we introduce “Zero-Shot” SR, which exploits the power of Deep
Learning, but does not rely on prior training. We exploit
the internal recurrence of information inside a single image, and train a small image-specific CNN at test time, on
examples extracted solely from the input image itself. As
such, it can adapt itself to different settings per image. This
allows to perform SR of real old photos, noisy images, biological data, and other images where the acquisition process is unknown or non-ideal. On such images, our method
outperforms SotA CNN-based SR methods, as well as previous unsupervised SR methods. To the best of our knowledge,
this is the first unsupervised CNN-based SR method.

1. Introduction
Super-Resolution (SR) from a single image has recently
received a huge boost in performance using Deep-Learning
based methods [3, 9, 8, 11, 12]. The recent SotA (State of
the Art) method [12] exceeds previous non-Deep SR methods (supervised [21] or unsupervised [4, 5, 6]) by a few dBs
– a huge margin! This boost in performance was obtained
with very deep and well engineered CNNs, which were
trained exhaustively on external databases, for lengthy periods of time (days or weeks). However, while these exter-

1 We use the term “supervised” for any method that trains on externally supplied examples (even if their generation does not require manual
labelling).

1

(a) Historic image: Check-point Charlie (end of World-War II) – SR × 2
ZSSR (ours)

EDSR [12]

(b) iPhone image – SR × 3

(c) Historic image: JFK funeral – SR × 2

EDSR [12]

ZSSR (ours)

(d) Outdoor image downloaded from the Internet – SR × 2

EDSR [12]

ZSSR (ours)

EDSR [12]

ZSSR (ours)

Figure 1: SR of real images (unknown LR acquisition process). Real-world images rarely obey the ‘ideal conditions’
assumed by supervised SR methods. For example, old historic photos (a,c), images taken by smartphones (b), random images
on the Internet (d), etc. Since ZSSR trains at test time on examples extracted from the test image, it is better at performing SR
‘In-the-Wild’ (i.e., in unconstrained and unknown settings). Full sized images can be found on our project website.
2

(a) SR under aliasing:

Ground truth
(PSNR /SSIM)

EDSR+ [12]
( 21.64 / 0.6641)

ZSSR (ours)
(25.02 / 0.7658)

EDSR+ [12]
(24.44 / 0.7006)

ZSSR (ours)
(27.62 / 0.8367)

(b) SR under unknown non-ideal downscaling kernel:

Ground truth
(PSNR /SSIM)

Figure 2: SR of ‘non-ideal’ LR images – a controlled experiment. (a) LR image generated with aliasing (donwscaling
kernel is a delta function). (b) LR image generated with a non-ideal downscaling kernel. The unknown image-specific kernel
is estimated directly from the LR test image using [14], and fed into our image-specific CNN as the downscaling kernel (note
that externally-trained networks cannot make use of such image-specific information at test-time). Full sized images can be
found on our project website. Quantitative evaluation on hundreds of ‘non-ideal’ LR images can be found in Sec. 4.2.
was shown to be a very strong property of natural images [4, 23]. This formed the basis for many unsupervised image enhancement methods, including unsupervised SR [4, 5, 6], Blind-SR [14] (when the downscaling kernel is unknown), Blind-Deblurring [15, 1], BlindDehazing [2], and more. While such unsupervised methods
can exploit image-specific information (hence are less subject to the above-mentioned supervised restrictions), they
typically rely on simple Eucledian similarity of small image patches, of predefined size (typically 5 × 5), using Knearest-neighbours search. As such, they do not generalize
well to patches that do not exist in the LR image, nor to new
implicitly learned similarity measures, nor can they adapt to
non-uniform sizes of repeating structures inside the image.

Since the visual entropy inside a single image is much
smaller than in a general external collection of images [23],
a small and simple CNN suffices for this image-specific
task. Hence, even though our network is trained at test time,
its train+test runtime is comparable to the test runtime of
SotA supervised CNNs. Interestingly, our image-specific
CNN produces impressive results (although not SotA) on
the ‘ideal’ benchmark datasets used by the SotA supervised
methods (even though our CNN is small and has not been
pretrained), and surpasses SotA supervised SR by a large
margin on ‘non-ideal’ images. We provide both visual and
empirical evidence of these statements.
The term “Zero-Shot” used here, is borrowed from the
domains of recognition/classification. Note however, that
unlike these approaches for Zero-Shot Learning [22] or
One-shot Learning [18], our approach does not require any
side information/attributes or any additional images. We
may only have a single test image at hand, one of a kind,
and nothing else. Nevertheless, when additional information is available and provided (e.g., the downscaling kernel
can be estimated directly from the test image using [14]),
our image-specific CNN can make good use of this at test
time, to further improve the results.

Our image-specific CNN leverages on the power of the
cross-scale internal recurrence of image-specific information, without being restricted by the above-mentioned limitations of patch-based methods. We train a CNN to infer
complex image-specific HR-LR relations from the LR image and its downscaled versions (self-supervision). We then
apply those learned relations on the LR input image to produce the HR output. This outperforms unsupervised patchbased SR by a large margin.
3

Our contributions are therefore several-fold:
(i) To our best knowledge, this is the first unsupervised
CNN-based SR method.
(ii) It can handle non-ideal imaging conditions, and a wide
variety of images and data types (even if encountered for
the first time).
(iii) It does not require pretraining and can be run with modest amounts of computational resources.
(iv) It can be applied for SR to any size and theoretically
also with any aspect-ratio.
(v) It can be adapted to known as well as unknown imaging
conditions (at test time).
(v) It provides SotA SR results on images taken with ‘nonideal’ conditions, and competitive results on ‘ideal’ conditions for which SotA supervised methods were trained on.

Figure 3: Internal predictive power of image-specific information. Simple unsupervised internal-SR [4] is able to
reconstruct the tiny handrail in the tiny balconies, whereas
externally-trained SotA SR methods fail to do so. Evidence
to the existence of those tiny handrails exists only internally,
inside this image, at a different location and scale (in one
of the larger balconies). Such evidence is not found in any
external database of images (no matter how large it is).

2. The Power of Internal Image Statistics
Fundamental to our approach is the fact that natural images have strong internal data repetition. For example,
small image patches (e.g., 5×5, 7×7) were shown to repeat many times inside a single image, both within the same
scale, as well as across different image scales. This observation was empirically verified by [4, 23] using hundreds
of natural images, and was shown to be true for almost any
small patch in almost any natural image.

3. Image-Specific CNN
Our image-specific CNN combines the predictive power
and low entropy of internal image-specific information,
with the generalization capabilities of Deep-Learning.
Given a test image I, with no external examples available
to train on, we construct an Image-Specific CNN tailored
to solve the SR task for this specific image. We train our
CNN on examples extracted from the test image itself. Such
examples are obtained by downscaling the LR image I, to
generate a lower-resolution version of itself, I ↓ s (where
s is the desired SR scale factor). We use a relatively light
CNN, and train it to reconstruct the test image I from its
lower-resolution version I ↓ s (top part of Fig. 4(b)). We
then apply the resulting trained CNN to the test image I,
now using I as the LR input to the network, in order to construct the desired HR output I ↑ s (bottom of Fig. 4(b)).
Note that the trained CNN is fully convolutional, hence can
be applied to images of different sizes.
Since our “training set” consists of one instance only (the
test image), we employ data augmentation on I to extract
more LR-HR example-pairs to train on. The augmentation
is done by downscaling the test image I to many smaller
versions of itself (I = I0 , I1 , I2 , ..., In ). These play the role
of the HR supervision and are called “HR fathers”. Each
of the HR fathers is then downscaled by the desired SR
scale-factor s to obtain the “LR sons”, which form the input training instances. The resulting training set consists of
many image-specific LR-HR example pairs. The network
can then stochastically train over these pairs.
We further enrich the training set by transforming each

Fig. 3 shows an example of a simple single-image SR
based on internal patch recurrence (courtesy of [4]). Note
that it is able to recover the tiny handrails in the tiny balconies, since evidence to their existence is found elsewhere
inside this image, in one of the larger balconies. In fact,
the only evidence to the existence of these tiny handrails
exists internally, inside this image, at a different location
and different scale. It cannot be found in any external
database of examples, no matter how large this dataset is!
As can be seen, SotA SR methods fail to recover this imagespecific information when relying on externally trained images. While the strong internal predictive-power is exemplified here using a ‘fractal-like’ image, the internal predictivepower was analyzed and shown to be strong for almost any
natural image [4].
In fact, it was empirically shown by [23] that the internal entropy of patches inside a single image is much
smaller than the external entropy of patches in a general
collection of natural images. This further gave rise to
the observation that internal image statistics often provides
stronger predictive-power than external statistics obtained
from a general image collection. This preference was further shown to be particularly strong under growing uncertainty and image degradations (see [23, 16] for details).
4

Figure 4: Image-Specific CNN – “Zero-Shot” SR. (a) Externally-supervised SR CNNs are pre-trained on large external
databases of images. The resulting very deep network is then applied to the test image I. (b) Our proposed method (ZSSR): a
small image-specific CNN is trained on examples extracted internally, from the test image itself. It learns how to recover the
test image I from its coarser resolutions. The resulting self-supervised network is then applied to the LR image I to produce
its HR output.
LR-HR pair using 4 rotations (0◦ , 90◦ , 180◦ , 270◦ ) and their
mirror reflections in the vertical and horizontal directions.
This adds ×8 more image-specific training examples.
For the sake of robustness, as well as to allow large SR
scale factors s even from very small LR images, the SR is
performed gradually [4, 20]. Our algorithm is applied for
several intermediate scale-factors (s1 , s2 , ..., sm = s). At
each intemediate scale si , we add the generated SR image
HRi and its downscaled/rotated versions to our gradually
growing training-set, as new HR fathers. We downscale
those (as well as the previous smaller ‘HR examples’) by
the next gradual scale factor si+1 , to generate the new LRHR training example pairs. This is repeated until reaching
the full desired resolution increase s.

polated LR and its HR parent. We use L1 loss with ADAM
optimizer [10]. We start with a learning rate of 0.001. We
periodically take a linear fit of the reconstruction error and
if the standard deviation is greater by a factor than the slope
of the linear fit we divide the learning rate by 10. We stop
when we get to a learning rate of 10−6 .
To accelerate the training stage and make the runtime independent of the size of the test image I, at each iteration we
take a random crop of fixed size from a randomly-selected
father-son example pair. The crop is typically 128×128 (unless the sampled image-pair is smaller). The probability of
sampling a LR-HR example pair at each training iteration is
set to be non-uniform and proportional to the size of the HRfather. The closer the size-ratio (between the HR-father and
the test image I) is to 1, the higher its probability to be sampled. This reflects the higher reliability of non-synthesized
HR examples over synthesize ones.
Lastly, we use a method similar to the geometric
self-ensemble proposed in [12] (which generates 8 different
outputs for the 8 rotations+flips of the test image I, and
then combines them). We take the median of these 8
outputs rather than their mean. We further combine it
with the back-projection technique of [7, 4], so that each
of the 8 output images undergoes several iterations of
back-projection and finally the median image is corrected
by back-projection as well.

3.1. Architecture & Optimization
Supervised CNNs, which train on a large and diverse external collection of LR-HR image examples, must capture
in their learned weights the large diversity of all possible
LR-HR relations. As such, these networks tend to be extremely deep and very complex. In contrast, the diversity of
the LR-HR relations within a single image is significantly
smaller, hence can be encoded by a much smaller and simpler image-specific network.
We use a simple, fully convolutional network, with 8
hidden layers, each has 64 channels. We use ReLU activations on each layer. The network input is interpolated to
the output size. As done in previous CNN-based SR methods [9, 8, 3], we only learn the residual between the inter-

Runtime: Although training is done at test time, the average runtime per image is 54 sec for a single increase in SR
5

scale-factor (on a Tesla K-80 GPU). This runtime is independent of the image size or the relative SR scale-factor s
(this is a result of the equally sized random crops used in
training; the final test runtime is negligible with respect to
training iterations). Nevertheless, better SR results are obtained when using a gradual increase in resolution. For example, a gradual increase using 6 intermediate scale-factors
typically improves the PSNR by ∼0.2dB, but increases the
runtime to ∼5min per image. There is therefore a tradeoff
between runtime and the output quality, which is up to the
user to choose. Most of the results reported in this paper
were produced using 6 intermediate scale-factors.
For comparison, the test-time of the leading EDSR+ [12]
(on the same platform) is ∼20 sec for SR×2 on a 200×200
image. However, EDSR’s run time grows quadratically
with the image size, and reaches 5min for an 800 × 800
image. Beyond that size, our network is faster than EDSR+.

(whether due to sensor noise in the image, JPEG compression artifacts, etc.) We found that adding a small amount
of Gaussian noise (with zero mean and a small standarddeviation of ∼5 grayscales), improves the performance for a
wide variety of degradations (Gaussian noise, speckle noise,
JPEG artifacts, and more). We attribute this phenomenon
to the fact that image-specific information tends to repeat
across scales, whereas noise artifacts do not [24]. Adding
a bit of synthetic noise to the LR sons (but not to their HR
fathers) teaches the network to ignore uncorrelated crossscale information (the noise), while learning to increase the
resolution of correlated information (the signal details).
Indeed, our experiments show that for low-quality LR
images, and for a wide variety of degradation types, the
image-specific CNN obtains significantly better SR results
than SotA EDSR+ [12] (see Sec. 4). Similarly, in the case
of non-ideal downscaling kernels, the image-specific CNN
obtains a significant improvement over SotA (even in the
absence of any noise). When the downscaling kernel is
known (e.g., a sensor with a known PSF), it can be provided
to our network. When the downscaling kernel is unknown
(which is usually the case), a rough estimate of the kernel
can be computed directly from the test image itself (e.g.,
using the method of [14]). Such rough kernel estimations
suffice to obtain +1dB improvement over EDSR+ on nonideal kernels (see examples in Figs. 1 and 2, and empirical
evaluations in Sec. 4).
Note that providing the estimated downscaling kernel to
externally-supervised SotA SR methods at test time, would
be of no use. They would need to exhaustively re-train a
new network on a new collection of LR-HR pairs, generated
with this specific (non-parametric) downscaling kernel.

3.2. Adapting to the Test Image
When the acquisition parameters of the LR images from
their HR ones are fixed for all images (e.g., same downscaling kernel, high-quality imaging conditions), current supervised SR methods achieve an incredible performance [19].
In practice, however, the acquisition process tends to change
from image to image, since cameras/sensors differ (e.g., different lens types and PSFs), as well as the individual imaging conditions (e.g., subtle involuntary camera shake when
taking the photo, poor visibility conditions, etc). This results in different downscaling kernels, different noise characteristics, various compression artifacts, etc. One could
not practically train for all possible image acquisition configurations/settings. Moreover, a single supervised CNN is
unlikely to perform well for all possible types of degradations/settings. To obtain good performance, one would need
many different specialized SR networks, each trained (for
days or weeks) on different types of degradations/settings.
This is where the advantage of an image-specific network
comes in. Our network can be adapted to the specific degradations/settings of the test image at hand, at test time. Our
network can receive from the user, at test time, any of the
following parameters:
(i) The desired downscaling kernel (when no kernel is provided, the bicubic kernel serves as a default).
(ii) The desired SR scale-factor s.
(iii) The desired number of gradual scale increases (a tradeoff between speed and quality – the default is 6).
(iv) Whether to enforce Backprojection between the LR and
HR image (the default is ‘Yes’).
(v) Whether to add ‘noise’ to the LR sons in each LR-HR
example pair extracted from the LR test image (the default
is ‘No’).
The last 2 parameters (cancelling the Backprojection and
adding noise) allow to handle SR of poor-quality LR images

4. Experiments & Results
Our method (ZSSR - ‘Zero-Shot SR’) is primarily aimed
at real LR images obtained with realistic (unknown and
varying) acquisition setting. These usually have no HR
ground truth, hence are evaluated visually (as in Fig. 1).
In order to quantitatively evaluate ZSSR’s performance, we
ran several controlled experiments, on a variety of settings.
Interestingly, ZSSR produces competitive results (although
not SotA) on the ‘ideal’ benchmark datasets for which the
SotA supervised methods train and specialize (even though
our CNN is small, and has not been pretrained). However,
on ‘non-ideal’ datasets, ZSSR surpasses SotA SR by a large
margin. All reported numerical results were produced using
the evaluation script of [8, 9].

4.1. The ‘Ideal’ Case
While this is not the aim of ZSSR, we tested it also
on the standard SR benchmarks of ‘ideal’ LR images. In
these benchmarks, the LR images are ideally downscaled
from their HR versions using MATLAB’s imresize com6

Ground Truth
(PSNR, SSIM)

VDSR [8]
(20.11, 0.9136)

EDSR+ [12]
(25.29 / 0.9627)

ZSSR (ours)
(25.68 / 0.9546)

Figure 5: In images with strong internal repetitive structures, ZSSR tends to surpass VDSR, and sometimes also EDSR+,
even though the LR image was generated using the ‘ideal’ supervised setting (i.e., bicubic downscaling).

Dataset
Set5

Set14

BSD100

Scale
×2
×3
×4
×2
×3
×4
×2
×3
×4

SRCNN [3]
36.66 / 0.9542
32.75 / 0.9090
30.48 / 0.8628
32.42 / 0.9063
29.28 / 0.8209
27.49 / 0.7503
31.36 / 0.8879
28.41 / 0.7863
26.90 / 0.7101

Supervised
VDSR [8]
37.53 / 0.9587
33.66 / 0.9213
31.35 / 0.8838
33.03 / 0.9124
29.77 / 0.8314
28.01 / 0.7674
31.90 / 0.8960
28.82 / 0.7976
27.29 / 0.7251

EDSR+ [12]
38.20 / 0.9606
34.76 / 0.9290
32.62 / 0.8984
34.02 / 0.9204
30.66 / 0.8481
28.94 / 0.7901
32.37 / 0.9018
29.32 / 0.8104
27.79 / 0.7437

Unsupervised
SelfExSR [6]
ZSSR (ours)
36.49 / 0.9537 37.37 / 0.9570
32.58 / 0.9093 33.42 / 0.9188
30.31 / 0.8619 31.13 / 0.8796
32.22 / 0.9034 33.00 / 0.9108
29.16 / 0.8196 29.80 / 0.8304
27.40 / 0.7518 28.01 / 0.7651
31.18 / 0.8855 31.65 / 0.8920
28.29 / 0.7840 28.67 / 0.7945
26.84 / 0.7106 27.12 / 0.7211

Table 1: Comparison of SR results for the ’ideal’ case (bicubic downscaling).
mand (a bicubic kernel downsampling with antialiasing).
Table 1 shows that our image-specific ZSSR achieves competitive results against externally-supervised methods that
were exhaustively trained for these conditions. In fact,
ZSSR is significantly better than the older SRCNN [3], and
in some cases achieves comparable or better results than
VDSR [8] (which was the SotA until a year ago). Within
the unsupervised-SR regime, ZSSR outperforms the leading method SelfExSR [6] by a large margin.
Moreover, in images with very strong internal repetitive
structures, ZSSR tends to surpass VDSR, and sometimes
also EDSR+, even though these LR images were generated using the ‘ideal’ supervised setting. One such example is shown in Fig. 5. Although this image is not a typical natural image, further analysis shows that the preference for internal learning (via ZSSR) exhibited in Fig. 5
exists not only in ‘fractal-like’ images, but is also found in
general natural images. Several such examples are shown
in Fig. 6. As can be seen, some of the pixels in the image
(those marked in green) benefit more from exploiting internally learned data recurrence (ZSSR) over deeply learned
external information, whereas other pixels (those marked in
red) benefit more from externally learned data (EDSR+).
As expected, the internal approach (ZSSR) is mostly advantageous in image area with high recurrence of informa-

tion, especially in areas where these patterns are extremely
small (of extremely low resolution), like the small windows
in the top of the building. Such tiny patters find larger (highres) examples of themselves elsewhere inside the same image (at a different location/scale). This indicates that there
may be potential for further SR improvement (even in the
‘ideal’ bicubic case), by combining the power of InternalLearning with External-Learning in a single computational
framework. This remains part of our future work.

4.2. The ‘Non-ideal’ Case
Real LR images do not tend to be ideally generated. We
have experimented with non-ideal cases that result from
either: (i) non-ideal downscaling kernels (that deviate from
the bicubic kernel), and (ii) low-quality LR images (e.g.,
due to noise, compression artifacts, etc.) In such non-ideal
cases, the image-specific ZSSR provides significantly
better results than SotA SR methods (by 1 − 2dB). These
quantities experiments are described next. Fig. 2 shows a
few such visual results. Additional visual results and full
images can be found in our project website.
(A) Non-ideal downscaling kernels: The purpose of this
experiment is to test more realistic blur kernels with the
ability to numerically evaluate the results. For this purpose
7

VDSR [8]
27.7212 / 0.7635

EDSR+ [12]
27.7826 / 0.7660

Blind-SR [14]
28.420 / 0.7834

ZSSR [estimated kernel] (ours)
28.8118 / 0.8306

ZSSR [true kernel] (ours)
29.6814 / 0.8414

Table 2: SR in the presence of unknown downscaling kernels. LR images were generated from the BSD100 dataset using random
downscaling kernels (of reasonable size). SR×2 was then applied to those images. Please see text for more details.

Bicubic interpolation
27.9216 / 0.7504

EDSR+ [12]
27.5600 / 0.7135

ZSSR (ours)
28.6148 / 0.7809

Table 3: SR in the presence of unknown image degradation. Each LR image from the BSD100 dataset was randomly degraded using one of 3 types of degradations: (i) Gaussian noise,
(ii) Speckle noise, (iii) JPEG compression. SR×2 was then applied to those images, without knowing the type of degradation.
ZSSR shows robustness to unknown degradations, whereas SotA
SR methods are not. In fact, under such conditions, bicubic interpolation outperforms current SotA SR methods.
we created a new dataset from BSD100 [13] by downscaling
the HR images using random (but reasonably sized) Gaussian kernels. For each image, the covariance matrix Σ of its
downscaling kernel was chosen to have a random angle θ
and random lengths λ1 , λ2 in each axis:

Figure 6: Internal vs. External preference. Green: pixels that favor Internal-SR (i.e., pixels where ZSSR obtains
lower error with respect to the ground-truth HR image);
Red: pixels that favour External-SR (EDSR+). Notice
that edges (which are frequent in natural images) prefer
External-SR, whereas unique image structures (e.g., the tiny
windows at the top of the high building) prefer Internal-SR.
Such tiny patters find larger (high-res) examples of themselves elsewhere inside the same image (at a different location/scale).

λ1 , λ2 v U [0, s2 ]
θ v U [0, π]
Λ = diag(λ1 , λ2 )


cos(θ) − sin(θ)
U=
sin(θ) cos(θ)
Σ = UΛUt

(1)

generated by SotA methods are very blurry (see Fig. 2, and
project website) . Interestingly, the unsupervised Blind-SR
method of [14], which does not use any deep learning, also
outperforms SotA SR methods. This further supports the
analysis and observations of [17], that (i) an accurate donwscaling model is more important than sophisticated image
priors, and (ii) using the wrong donwscaling kernel leads to
oversmoothed SR results.
A special case of a non-ideal kernel is the δ kernel,
which results in aliasing. This case too, is not handled well
by SotA methods (see example in Fig. 2).

where s is the HR-LR downscaling factor. Thus, each
LR image was subsampled by a different random kernel. Table 2 compares our performance against the leading externally-supervised SR methods [12, 8]. We also
compared our performance to the unsupervised Blind-SR
method of [14]. We considered two cases for applying
ZSSR: (i) The more realistic scenario of unknown downscaling kernel. For this mode we used [14] to evaluate the
kernel directly from the test image and fed it to ZSSR. The
unknown SR kernel is estimated in [14] by seeking a nonparametric downscaling kernel which maximizes the similarity of patches across scales in the LR test image. (ii) We
applied ZSSR with the true downscaling kernel used to create the LR image. Such a scenario is potentially useful for
images obtained by sensors with known specs.
Note that none of the externally-supervised methods are
able to benefit from knowing the blur kernel of the test image (whether estimated or real), since they were trained
and optimized exhaustively for a specific kernel. Table 2
shows that ZSSR outperforms SotA methods by a very large
margin: +1db for unknown (estimated) kernels, and +2db
when provided the true kernels. Visually, the SR images

(B) Poor-quality LR images:
In this experiment, we
tested images with different types of quality degradation.
To test the robustness of ZSSR in coping with unknown
damage, we chose for each image from BSD100 [13] a random type of degradation out of 3 degradations: (i) Gaussian
noise [σ = 0.05], (ii) Speckle noise [σ = 0.05], (iii) JPEG
compression [quality = 45 (By MATLAB standard)]. Table 3 shows that ZSSR is robust to unknown degradation
types, while these typically damage SR supervised methods
to the point where bicubic interpolation outperforms current SotA SR methods!
8

5. Conclusion
We introduce the concept of “Zero-Shot” SR, which exploits the power of Deep Learning, without relying on any
external examples or prior training. This is obtained via a
small image-specific CNN, which is trained at test time on
internal examples extracted solely from the LR test image.
This yields SR of real-world images, whose acquisition process is non-ideal, unknown, and changes from image to image (i.e., image-specific settings). In such real-world ‘nonideal’ settings, our method substantially outperforms SotA
SR methods, both qualitatively and quantitatively. To our
best knowledge, this is the first unsupervised CNN-based
SR method.

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]
[17]

References
[1] Y. Bahat, N. Efrat, and M. Irani. Non-uniform blind deblurring by reblurring. In ICCV, 2017. 3
[2] Y. Bahat and M. Irani. Blind dehazing using internal patch
recurrence. In ICCP, 2016. 3
[3] K. H. X. T. Chao Dong, Chen Change Loy. Learning a deep
convolutional network for image super-resolution. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2014. 1, 5,
7
[4] S. B. D. Glasner and M. Irani. Super-resolution from a single image. In International Conference on Computer Vision
(ICCV), 2009. 1, 3, 4, 5
[5] G. Freedman and R. Fattal. Image and video upscaling
from local self-examples. ACM Transactions on Graphics,
30(2):12, 2011. 1, 3
[6] J.-B. Huang, A. Singh, and N. Ahuja. Single image superresolution from transformed self-exemplars. In Proceedings
of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, pages 5197–5206, 2015. 1, 3, 7
[7] M. Irani and S. Peleg. Improving resolution by image registration. CVGIP: Graphical Model and Image Processing,
53(3):231–239, 1991. 5
[8] J. Kim, J. Kwon Lee, and K. Mu Lee. Accurate image superresolution using very deep convolutional networks. In The
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, pages 1646–1654, 06 2016. 1, 5, 6,
7, 8
[9] J. Kim, J. K. Lee, and K. M. Lee. Deeply-recursive convolutional network for image super-resolution. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR
Oral), June 2016. 1, 5, 6
[10] D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic
optimization. CoRR, abs/1412.6980, 2014. 5
[11] C. Ledig, L. Theis, F. Huszar, J. Caballero, A. Cunningham, A. Acosta, A. Aitken, A. Tejani, J. Totz, Z. Wang, and
W. Shi. Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a
generative adversarial network. arXiv:1609.04802, 2016. 1
[12] B. Lim, S. Son, H. Kim, S. Nah, and K. M. Lee. Enhanced
deep residual networks for single image super-resolution.
In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]
[23]

[24]

9

Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, July 2017. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
8
D. Martin, C. Fowlkes, D. Tal, and J. Malik. A database
of human segmented natural images and its application to
evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In Proc. 8th Int’l Conf. Computer Vision, volume 2, pages 416–423, July 2001. 8
T. Michaeli and M. Irani. Nonparametric blind superresolution. In International Conference on Computer Vision
(ICCV), 2013. 3, 6, 8
T. Michaeli and M. Irani. Blind deblurring using internal
patch recurrence. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). 2014. 3
I. Mosseri, M. Zontak, and M. Irani. Combining the power
of internal and external denoising. In ICCP, 2013. 4
A. A. B. N. A. l. Netalee Efrat, Daniel Glasner. Accurate blur
models vs. image priors in single image super-resolution. In
ICCV, 2013. 8
A. Santoro, S. Bartunov, M. Botvinick, D. Wierstra, and T. P.
Lillicrap. Meta-learning with memory-augmented neural
networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). 3
R. Timofte, E. Agustsson, M.-H. Van Gool, Luc Yang,
L. Zhang, et al. Ntire 2017 challenge on single image superresolution: Methods and results. In The IEEE Conference
on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, July 2017. 6
R. Timofte, R. Rothe, and L. Van Gool. Seven ways to improve example-based single image super resolution. In The
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2016. 5
R. Timofte, V. D. Smet, and L. V. Gool. A+: Adjusted anchored neighborhood regression for fast super-resolution. In
ACCV, 2014. 1
Y. Xian, B. Schiele, and Z. Akata. Zero-shot learning – the
Good, the Bad and the Ugly. In CVPR, 2017. 3
M. Zontak and M. Irani. Internal statistics of a single natural
image. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition (CVPR), June 2011. 3, 4
M. Zontak, I. Mosseri, and M. Irani. Separating signal from
noise using patch recurrence across scales. In CVPR, 2013.
6

