Paper:
DYNAMICALLY UNFOLDING RECURRENT RESTORER: A MOVING ENDPOINT CONTROL METHOD FOR IMAGE RESTORATION
In this paper, we propose a new control framework called the moving endpoint control to restore images corrupted by different degradation levels using a single model. The proposed control problem contains an image restoration dynamic which is modeled by a convolutional RNN. The moving endpoint, which is essentially the terminal time of the associated dynamic, is determined by a policy network. We call the proposed model the dynamically unfolding recurrent restorer (DURR). Numerical experiments show that DURR is able to achieve state-of-the-art performances on blind image denoising and JPEG image deblocking. Furthermore, DURR can well generalize to images with higher degradation levels that are not included in the training stage.

Review:
Summary:
The authors proposes a new image restoration method that becomes particularly useful for blind restoration setting, e.g., the unknown noise variance setting for denoising. They utilized the moving endpoint control methodology, which essentially is applying reinforcement learning to the image restoration, and devised a method that adaptively decides the unfolding steps for given noisy image. The experimental results show encouraging results. 
Pros:
In the experimental result, the proposed DURR outperforms DnCNN-B, a current state-of-the-art. Particularly, while DnCNN-B suffers for the noise level that it was not trained for, DURR can still denoise much better. (Table 2) A similar result is obtained for the JPEG deblocking problem as well. 
Cons:
- Since the Deep Q-learning is used to train the policy unit, I suspect the training time could be quite long. How does the reward curve look like while training? How stable is the training? Showing such details should make the paper stronger. 
- It will be interesting to see more details on the model. For example, what is the mean/std for the number of folds that model applies for BSD68? What is the distribution (histogram?) of the folds for BSD68? Currently, the paper just simply shows the results and seems to hide many details. 
- What was the choice for \lambda in Eq. (3),(4)? How do you choose it?
- How does the result look like on other benchmark datasets other than BSD68? It seems like the specific number of looks for each noise level is important for training. Do the choices of (25,4),(35,6),(45,9),(55,12) generalize well to other datasets as well?
Overall, I think the paper should add more details mentioned above to make the paper stronger.