Noise2Noise Revisited: Training Pair Distributions Dominate Loss Choice in Self-Supervised Denoising

arXiv:2609.16788v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Noise2Noise (N2N) trains denoisers on pairs of independently corrupted observations, eliminating clean references. We stress-test two natural conjectures about why the L1 loss outperforms L2 here. First, the hypothesis that the L1 loss confers robustness via parameter sparsity confuses the loss with Lasso regularization: an explicit Lasso penalty produces the predicted sparsity yet fails to reproduce L1's cross-noise behavior, while L1- and L2-trained weight distributions are indistinguishable. Second, the population optima of the two losses coincide exactly for symmetric signal posteriors and nearly so for concentrated ones. Measured differences are therefore dominated by optimization dynamics (bounded-influence gradients), which we probe with gradient statistics and contaminated-target training. On Kodak24 with five synthetic noise families, the L1 loss holds a statistically significant edge over L2, below 1 dB PSNR, holding across three seeds on 13 of the 14 noise columns. On real camera noise the loss is not the decisive variable in distribution: on official SIDD validation blocks, synthetic-Gaussian-trained N2N models gain only 0.8 to 3.7 dB over the noisy input regardless of loss, while retraining on SIDD's own noisy pairs, never reading ground truth, gains 9.4 to 11.0 dB, far ahead of BM3D. All metrics are on raw network outputs, and the study makes no leaderboard claim. The training pair distribution, not the loss, carries the inductive bias. That design rule applies wherever clean references are unobtainable, from microscopy to industrial inspection sensors.

Abstract:Noise2Noise (N2N) trains denoisers on pairs of independently corrupted observations, eliminating clean references. We stress-test two natural conjectures about why the L1 loss outperforms L2 here. First, the hypothesis that the L1 loss confers robustness via parameter sparsity confuses the loss with Lasso regularization: an explicit Lasso penalty produces the predicted sparsity yet fails to reproduce L1's cross-noise behavior, while L1- and L2-trained weight distributions are indistinguishable. Second, the population optima of the two losses coincide exactly for symmetric signal posteriors and nearly so for concentrated ones. Measured differences are therefore dominated by optimization dynamics (bounded-influence gradients), which we probe with gradient statistics and contaminated-target training. On Kodak24 with five synthetic noise families, the L1 loss holds a statistically significant edge over L2, below 1 dB PSNR, holding across three seeds on 13 of the 14 noise columns. On real camera noise the loss is not the decisive variable in distribution: on official SIDD validation blocks, synthetic-Gaussian-trained N2N models gain only 0.8 to 3.7 dB over the noisy input regardless of loss, while retraining on SIDD's own noisy pairs, never reading ground truth, gains 9.4 to 11.0 dB, far ahead of BM3D. All metrics are on raw network outputs, and the study makes no leaderboard claim. The training pair distribution, not the loss, carries the inductive bias. That design rule applies wherever clean references are unobtainable, from microscopy to industrial inspection sensors.

8 pages, 3 figures, 3 tables. Accepted to The 8th International Conference on Video, Signal and Image Processing (VSIP 2026). Code and data: this https URL

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Image and Video Processing (eess.IV)

I.4.4; I.2.6; G.3

arXiv:2609.16788 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.16788v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.16788 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

aiqbench analysis

Noise2Noise Revisited: Training Pair Distributions Dominate Loss Choice in Self-Supervised Denoising

Related coverage