Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 3 cited by

HeadRouter: A Training-free Image Editing Framework for MM-DiTs by Adaptively Routing Attention Heads

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read HeadRouter claims that text-guided editing of images in multimodal diffusion transformers can be done training-free by amplifying the attention heads whose outputs differ most between reconstruction and editing, and evaluates this on two…

desk verdict Plausible training-free editing for MM-DiTs with a genuine head-sensitivity observation, but the router's causal basis is unverified and the evidence is thin; worth conditional peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15034 v1 pith:COHIU7Y7 submitted 2024-11-22 cs.CV cs.LG

Yu Xu , Fan Tang , Juan Cao , Yuxin Zhang , Xiaoyu Kong , Jintao Li , Oliver Deussen , Tong-Yee Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords imageeditingdiffusiontransformersmultimodalDiTattentionheadstraining-freetext-guidedroutingsemanticalignment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that multimodal diffusion transformers (MM-DiTs), the joint self-attention architectures behind recent text-to-image models, hide a usable editing signal inside their multi-head attention: different heads are sensitive to different image semantics, and text guidance flows from text tokens to image tokens in the joint attention map. On that basis it introduces HeadRouter, a training-free editing framework that runs a reconstruction branch (source prompt) and an editing branch (target prompt) side by side, computes how much each attention head's output changes between the two, and softly amplifies the most changed heads during generation. A second module, dual-token refinement, reweights image tokens in regions that the text actually attends to and carries residual text tokens into deeper blocks, countering the paper's observation that text influence decays with block depth. If the framework is right, precise semantic edits such as changing color, material, texture, or content can be applied to MM-DiT images without finetuning, while preserving structure better than the seven baselines this paper compares against. The reason a reader should care is that MM-DiTs lack the explicit cross-attention maps that prior UNet-based editing methods relied on, and HeadRouter offers a way to edit them using only internal attention statistics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the instance-adaptive attention head router (IARouter), which turns 'which heads matter for this edit' into a per-head multiplicative weight. Given the output features of head h in the reconstruction and editing branches, it computes cosine similarity, normalizes the dissimilarity relative to the best- and worst-matching heads, and applies a smooth sigmoid gate so that only the most-dissimilar heads are amplified. The supporting mechanism is dual-token refinement: semantic-oriented image token enhancement reweights image tokens by normalized text-to-image attention, and residual-based text token enhancement feeds the previous block's text tokens into the current block. Together they identify the region the prompt is changing and keep the text signal from fading in deep blocks.

What would settle it

Take a fixed source image and two target prompts that change only one semantic attribute while all other described attributes stay identical, compute per-head dissimilarity between reconstruction and editing branches, and amplify only the top-ranked heads. If the output changes mostly in unrelated attributes such as lighting or layout, or if the target semantic shift is absent, the routing signal is not causally specific to the target semantic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that semantic fidelity in MM-DiT image editing can be achieved by exploiting head-level specialization instead of treating attention heads uniformly. The paper first shows that dropping the head most sensitive to a semantic (shape, material, color, style) shifts that semantic in the output, and swapping that head's output partially injects the semantic into another image. From this, the instance-adaptive attention head router (IARouter) computes a normalized cosine dissimilarity score between each head's output in the reconstruction and editing branches, and multiplies the editing-branch head outputs by a sigmoid-gated weight, so heads whose features changed most are amplified smoothly while unchanged heads are nearly untouched. The dual-token refinement module (DTR) reads the joint attention weights from text tokens to image tokens, reweights image tokens by a normalized softmax-sigmoid map to concentrate the edit on affected regions, and adds residual text-token injection to keep text guidance strong in deep blocks. On two text-guided editing benchmarks, the paper reports higher structure-alignment, prompt-alignment, and perceptual-quality scores than seven baseline methods, with a user study favoring the method on both prompt alignment and preservation of irrelevant regions.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's load-bearing premise is that the attention heads whose outputs differ most between the reconstruction and editing branches are the ones actually carrying the desired edited semantic, so amplifying them improves editing fidelity rather than amplifying unrelated or global image changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If HeadRouter is correct, training-free editing becomes practical for MM-DiTs: one framework handles object addition, content change, material change, texture change, and style change without finetuning or extra attention modules.
  • The editing strength can be controlled per instance through the router's sigmoid parameters, allowing smooth interpolation between source fidelity and prompt fidelity.
  • Because text guidance is carried residually across blocks, edits stay semantically precise even in deep generation stages where text attention would otherwise decay.
  • The paper's reported gains on structure, prompt, and quality metrics imply that amplifying branch-dissimilar heads preserves the source structure better than the seven baselines considered, at the cost of running a reconstruction branch alongside the edit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the router's dissimilarity signal is a correlation, not a proof of causation; a causal test that ablates only the top-ranked heads and verifies that the target semantic alone disappears would discriminate routing from generic amplification of all changes.
  • Editorial inference: because weights are produced per head, block, and denoising step, the pipeline could be turned into an editable 'head map' that lets a user strengthen or weaken one semantic, such as material but not color, by adjusting a single weight.
  • Editorial inference: the same branch-dissimilarity routing principle may transfer to other joint-attention multimodal transformers, such as video DiTs or multimodal LLMs performing visual grounding, wherever 'editing' can be cast as amplifying task-relevant heads.
  • Editorial inference: the two-branch design roughly doubles generation cost relative to plain sampling; caching reference head outputs from the reconstruction branch and reusing them across edits of the same image is a natural efficiency extension that the paper does not explore.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HeadRouter, a training-free framework for text-guided image editing in multimodal diffusion transformers (MM-DiTs). The method has two components. First, the Instance-adaptive Attention Head Router (IARouter) computes cosine dissimilarity between attention-head outputs from a reconstruction branch and an editing branch (Eqs. 12–15) and amplifies the heads that differ most using a sigmoid-weighted enhancement (Eq. 16–18). Second, the Dual-token Refinement Module (DTR) reweights text-to-image attention to emphasize image tokens most influenced by the edit prompt (Eqs. 19–20) and adds residual text tokens to counteract the observed decay of text guidance in deeper blocks. The method is evaluated on TEDBench++ and PIE-Bench against seven baselines, reporting DINO, CLIP, and LPIPS scores plus a user study. The authors conclude that HeadRouter improves both editing fidelity and structural preservation relative to state-of-the-art methods.

Significance. If the central mechanism is validated, the paper makes a useful contribution: it addresses a real gap, since MM-DiTs lack the cross-attention maps that UNet-based editing methods exploit, and it proposes a training-free heuristic that requires no additional modules. The analysis of attention-head semantic sensitivity in MM-DiTs and the observation that text guidance decays with block depth are interesting and potentially reusable. The paper includes qualitative results, a user study, and visual ablations, and the writing is generally clear. However, the quantitative evidence is thin: a single table without error bars, one likely data error, and no causal test for the router's selection criterion. The five introduced hyperparameters are not specified in the main text and no code is released, which limits reproducibility. The claimed gains are therefore plausible but not yet convincingly established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (13) and (16)] The stated objective (1) says to 'assign high attention to heads with lower d~_h', but Eq. (16) assigns larger weights to larger d~_h because the sigmoid is monotonically increasing and d~ is the normalized dissimilarity (higher d~ means lower cosine similarity). As written, the text and the equation prescribe opposite behaviors. Please correct the text or clarify the intended direction; the ambiguity is load-bearing because it determines whether the router amplifies dissimilar or similar heads.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (12)–(18)] The central claim is that heads with the largest cosine dissimilarity between reconstruction and editing branches are the causally relevant carriers of the target semantic. The only support is final benchmark gains (Table 1) and the qualitative ablation in Fig. 8. An alternative explanation is that the dissimilarity is driven by image-wide changes, layout shifts, or inversion error rather than by the specific edited concept, and the manuscript itself acknowledges dependence on inversion accuracy in Sec. 5.4. Please provide a causal test, for example: (a) amplifying low-dissimilarity heads and showing the edit disappears or degrades; (b) computing dissimilarity scores from a mismatched or control prompt pair and showing the router then fails to improve editing; or (c) applying the router with noise-only perturbation of the editing branch to show the selected heads are semantically meaningful rather than arbitrary. Without such a test, the observed gains could arise from indiscriminate amplification rather than semantic routing.
  3. [Table 1] The LPIPS value for Instruct-Pix2Pix is 0.2975, which is identical to its CLIP value in the same table; this is almost certainly a copy-paste error and needs correction. More generally, the table reports only point estimates with no error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests. Several differences are small (e.g., CLIP 0.3203 vs. 0.3098; LPIPS 0.2103 vs. 0.2151), and the claim of state-of-the-art performance would be strengthened by reporting per-sample statistics, per-category breakdowns, and a paired significance test over the 700/120 images.
  4. [Sec. 4.1–4.2 and reproducibility] The method depends on five free hyperparameters — gamma, k, delta, alpha, and upsilon — but no values are given in the main text; they are deferred to a supplementary file that is not included, and no code is released. The reported gains cannot be independently reproduced or checked for sensitivity. Please provide the hyperparameter settings, a sensitivity analysis (e.g., how results vary across a reasonable range of each parameter), and release code or a detailed configuration.
  5. [Sec. 3.1] The motivation for IARouter rests on the claim that different attention heads are sensitive to different image semantics, but the measurement procedure is not specified. The text says 'We normalize each head's sensitivity to different semantics and display the results as a heat map', yet no formula or aggregation rule is given for the sensitivity score, nor is it stated how the score is computed from the paired dataset D_s. Please define the sensitivity metric precisely, including how it aggregates over heads, blocks, and denoising steps, so that the analysis is reproducible.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Table 1] The header contains a typo: 'MasaCrtl' should be 'MasaCtrl'.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The word 'obverse' should be 'observe' in the sentence 'we obverse that the text guidance wanes with increasing blocks depth'.
  3. [Eq. (19)] The notation uses e^{A_{i,j}} where A already contains attention probabilities (softmax outputs). Please clarify whether this is an exponentiated softmax with an implicit temperature or a typo, and specify whether the attention rows are renormalized after applying Eq. (20).
  4. [Eqs. (8)–(10)] The symbol ⊙ is described as 'image embedding and text embeddings are concatenated in the token length dimension', but ⊙ is conventionally used for elementwise multiplication. Please use a concatenation symbol (e.g., ⊕ or a bracket notation) to avoid confusion.
  5. [Baselines and references] In Sec. 5, the baseline 'P2P+NTI' is cited as [21], which is Null-text Inversion; Prompt-to-Prompt is reference [11]. Please cite both [11] and [21] when describing this baseline.
  6. [Sec. 5.4] The limitation sentence 'when editing common elements like the Eiffel Tower with a <description> Eiffel Tower may yield limited results' is awkward; please rephrase and include a concrete example or reference to a bad case figure.
  7. [Fig. 5] The radar chart axes are not labeled with numeric scales; please add a legend or caption explaining the metric and scale for each axis.
  8. [Sec. 6] There is a typo in the heading: 'Furture work' should be 'Future work'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: HeadRouter's routing and refinement modules are self-referential amplifiers, but all evaluative claims are checked against external benchmarks rather than derived from the routing signal itself.

full rationale

HeadRouter's central mechanism, IARouter, computes the cosine similarity between reconstruction-branch and editing-branch attention-head outputs (Eq. 12), normalizes it (Eqs. 13–15), and amplifies the editing-branch outputs with sigmoid weights (Eqs. 16–18). This is a feedback amplifier rather than a prediction derived from an input: the selection criterion and the modified quantity are the same forward-pass features, but the paper's claims of editing fidelity and image quality are evaluated with external metrics (DINO, CLIP, LPIPS, and a user study) on TEDBench++ and PIE-Bench. The sensitivity analysis in Sec. 3.1 is an independent empirical probe using dropout and head-swapping experiments, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The hyperparameters γ, k, δ, α, and υ are presented as design choices, with no statement that they are fitted to the test benchmarks; even if they were tuned, that would be ordinary hyperparameter selection rather than a circular reduction of the method's central claim. The paper's stated limitation about dependence on inversion accuracy (Sec. 5.4) is a robustness concern, not circularity. The concern that cosine dissimilarity may reflect image-wide changes rather than the target semantic is a correctness or validity risk, not a circularity, because the method's success is judged by external benchmarks. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems are present. Therefore, no step in the paper reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on five hand-set hyperparameters (gamma, k, delta, alpha, upsilon) whose values are not in the main text. It also assumes that head-level dissimilarity is a reliable proxy for semantic causality and that joint-attention weights reveal text-to-image influence. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma (max weight increment) = not reported in main text
    Controls the maximum boost applied to activated heads in IARouter (Eq. 16).
  • k (sigmoid steepness) = not reported in main text
    Sets the steepness of the head-weight sigmoid in Eq. 16.
  • delta (sigmoid center shift) = not reported in main text
    Shifts the center of the head-weight sigmoid in Eq. 16.
  • alpha (weight enhancement coefficient) = not reported in main text
    Scales the image-token reweighting in Eq. 19.
  • upsilon (amplitude adjustment) = not reported in main text
    Adjusts the amplitude of the attention-weight softmax in Eq. 19.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption In MM-DiTs, text tokens influence image tokens through joint self-attention, and this influence is captured by the attention weights between text and image tokens.
    Used throughout Sec 3.2 and in the DTR module (Eq. 19-20) to identify key image regions.
  • domain assumption Amplifying attention heads that are most dissimilar between reconstruction and editing branches steers the edit toward the target semantic without corrupting unrelated image regions.
    Core premise of IARouter (Eq. 12-18). The paper provides qualitative evidence but no causal validation.
  • domain assumption RF-Inversion provides a latent representation of the source image that is consistent enough for both the reconstruction and editing branches.
    The entire method depends on the accuracy of the inversion (Sec 5.4 acknowledges this limitation).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HeadRouter: A Training-free Image Editing Framework for MM-DiTs by Adaptively Routing Attention Heads." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/COHIU7Y7

@misc{pith2026241115034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HeadRouter: A Training-free Image Editing Framework for MM-DiTs by Adaptively Routing Attention Heads},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/COHIU7Y7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15034}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) have exhibited robust capabilities in image generation tasks. However, accurate text-guided image editing for multimodal DiTs (MM-DiTs) still poses a significant challenge. Unlike UNet-based structures that could utilize self/cross-attention maps for semantic editing, MM-DiTs inherently lack support for explicit and consistent incorporated text guidance, resulting in semantic misalignment between the edited results and texts. In this study, we disclose the sensitivity of different attention heads to different image semantics within MM-DiTs and introduce HeadRouter, a training-free image editing framework that edits the source image by adaptively routing the text guidance to different attention heads in MM-DiTs. Furthermore, we present a dual-token refinement module to refine text/image token representations for precise semantic guidance and accurate region expression. Experimental results on multiple benchmarks demonstrate HeadRouter's performance in terms of editing fidelity and image quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15034 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of HeadRouter demonstrate accurate text-guided semantic representation while preserving consistency with the source image across diverse editing tasks. Abstract Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) have exhibited robust ca￾pabilities in image generation tasks. However, accurate text-guided image editing for multimodal DiTs (MM-DiTs) still poses a significant challenge. Unlike UNet-based structures that could utiliz… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Analysis of multi-head attention in MM-DiTs. We illustrate the distribution of distinct semantics across attention heads. Dropping the most influential head leads to significant shifts in associated semantics while swapping the output features of this head enables targeted semantic injection to a certain degree. differential equation [1, 17, 19], which is different from SDE￾based diffusion models; thus, using the ab… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Analysis of text guidance on image tokens. Key image regions influenced by text guidance are identified within the joint self-attention map and visualized. Additionally, we observe that text guidance influence diminishes as attention blocks progress in the denoising steps, leading to weakened semantic representation from text-guided editing. Each Ds contains 500 pairs, so the entire dataset D contains 4000 pairs. We… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pipeline of our method. We mainly introduce instance-adaptive attention head router (IARouter) to adaptively activate attention heads based on their semantic sensitivity, enabling a more accurate representation of the edited specific images. the most effective attentio…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radar chart for evaluating image and prompt align￾ments in eight editing tasks. Overall, our approach effectively retains the intrinsic feature of the original image while aligning precisely with the specified text guidance. Aˆ i,j are computed as: Aˆ i,j = ˆwi,j · Ai,…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison with baseline methods on various editing tasks. Our results demonstrate high alignment with the text guidance while keeping consistency with the reference image. Evaluation Metrics. Following previous text-guided image editing work [3, 13, 22, 38…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual analysis for IARouter and DTR. Without IARouter, results tend to weaker semantic representation and retain the original semantics. With DTR, we achieve more fine-grained semantic representation. though the desired editing semantics are somewhat achieved, residua…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Aging Multiverse: Generating Condition-Aware Facial Aging Tree via Training-Free Diffusion

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A training-free diffusion framework creates condition-aware facial aging trees from one photo, balancing identity, age, and prompt-controlled attributes.

  2. ALTER: All-in-One Layer Pruning and Temporal Expert Routing for Efficient Diffusion Generation

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ALTER jointly learns layer pruning masks and timestep-to-expert routing for diffusion UNets, cutting MACs to 26% of the 50-step baseline while keeping FID and CLIP scores near parity.

  3. In-Context Brush: Zero-shot Customized Subject Insertion with Context-Aware Latent Space Manipulation

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In-Context Brush performs zero-shot customized subject insertion by amplifying prompt and reference attention and reweighting attention heads in a pre-trained Flux-Fill diffusion transformer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Building normalizing flows with stochastic interpolants

    Michael Samuel Albergo and Eric Vanden-Eijnden. Building normalizing flows with stochastic interpolants. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Flux, offering state-of-the-art performance image generation

    blackforestlabs.ai. Flux, offering state-of-the-art performance image generation. https://blackforestlabs.ai/,

  3. [3]

    Ledits++: Limitless image editing using text-to-image models

    Manuel Brack, Felix Friedrich, Katharia Kornmeier, Linoy Tsaban, Patrick Schramowski, Kristian Kersting, and Apolin´ario Passos. Ledits++: Limitless image editing using text-to-image models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8861–8870, 2024. 3, 6, 7

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 6, 7

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing

    Mingdeng Cao, Xintao Wang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Yinqiang Zheng. Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 22560–22570, 2023. 3, 6, 7

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Pixart- $\alpha$: Fast training of diffusion transformer for photorealistic text-to-image syn- thesis

    Junsong Chen, Jincheng YU, Chongjian GE, Lewei Yao, Enze Xie, Zhongdao Wang, James Kwok, Ping Luo, Huchuan Lu, and Zhenguo Li. Pixart- $\alpha$: Fast training of diffusion transformer for photorealistic text-to-image syn- thesis. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 1, 2

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. 1, 2, 3

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas M ¨uller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning,

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Interpreting clip’s image representation via text-based de- composition

    Yossi Gandelsman, Alexei A Efros, and Jacob Steinhardt. Interpreting clip’s image representation via text-based de- composition. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 2

    2024

  2. [10]

    Renoise: Real image inversion through iterative noising

    Daniel Garibi, Or Patashnik, Andrey V oynov, Hadar Averbuch-Elor, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Renoise: Real image inversion through iterative noising. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14602, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross-attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-or. Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross-attention control. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 3, 4

    2023

  4. [12]

    Diffusion model-based image editing: A survey

    Yi Huang, Jiancheng Huang, Yifan Liu, Mingfu Yan, Jiaxi Lv, Jianzhuang Liu, Wei Xiong, He Zhang, Shifeng Chen, and Liangliang Cao. Diffusion model-based image editing: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17525, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    An edit friendly ddpm noise space: Inversion and manipulations

    Inbar Huberman-Spiegelglas, Vladimir Kulikov, and Tomer Michaeli. An edit friendly ddpm noise space: Inversion and manipulations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12469– 12478, 2024. 2, 7

    2024

  6. [14]

    Openclip, 2021

    Gabriel Ilharco, Mitchell Wortsman, Ross Wightman, Cade Gordon, Nicholas Carlini, Rohan Taori, Achal Dave, Vaishaal Shankar, Hongseok Namkoong, John Miller, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Ali Farhadi, and Ludwig Schmidt. Openclip, 2021. 7

    2021

  7. [15]

    Pnp inversion: Boosting diffusion-based editing with 3 lines of code

    Xuan Ju, Ailing Zeng, Yuxuan Bian, Shaoteng Liu, and Qiang Xu. Pnp inversion: Boosting diffusion-based editing with 3 lines of code. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 3, 6

    2024

  8. [16]

    Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6007–6017, 2023. 6

    2023

  9. [17]

    Flow matching for generative modeling

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky TQ Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matthew Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 3

    2023

  10. [18]

    Towards understanding cross and self-attention in sta- ble diffusion for text-guided image editing

    Bingyan Liu, Chengyu Wang, Tingfeng Cao, Kui Jia, and Jun Huang. Towards understanding cross and self-attention in sta- ble diffusion for text-guided image editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7817–7826, 2024. 3

    2024

  11. [19]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, et al. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 3

    2023

  12. [20]

    Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jiajun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 6, 7

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6038–6047, 2023. 2, 6, 7

    2023

  14. [22]

    Contrastive denoising score for text-guided latent diffusion image editing

    Hyelin Nam, Gihyun Kwon, Geon Yeong Park, and Jong Chul Ye. Contrastive denoising score for text-guided latent diffusion image editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9192–9201, 2024. 3, 7

    2024

  15. [23]

    Lazy 9 diffusion transformer for interactive image editing

    Yotam Nitzan, Zongze Wu, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, Daniel Cohen-Or, Taesung Park, and Micha¨el Gharbi. Lazy 9 diffusion transformer for interactive image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12382, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sora: Creating video from text

    OpenAI. Sora: Creating video from text. https:// openai.com/sora, 2024. 1

    2024

  17. [25]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth´ee Darcet, Th´eo Moutakanni, Huy V V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel HAZIZA, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023. 7

    2023

  18. [26]

    Zero-shot image-to- image translation

    Gaurav Parmar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Richard Zhang, Yijun Li, Jingwan Lu, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Zero-shot image-to- image translation. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, pages 1–11, 2023. 3

    2023

  19. [27]

    Scalable diffusion mod- els with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion mod- els with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4195– 4205, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 2

    2024

  21. [29]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pa...

  22. [30]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2

    2022

  23. [31]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, pa...

    2015

  24. [32]

    Semantic image inversion and editing using rectified stochastic differential equations

    Litu Rout, Yujia Chen, Nataniel Ruiz, Constantine Caramanis, Sanjay Shakkottai, and Wen-Sheng Chu. Semantic image inversion and editing using rectified stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10792, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. 2

    2021

  27. [35]

    Guide-and-rescale: Self- guidance mechanism for effective tuning-free real image editing

    Vadim Titov, Madina Khalmatova, Alexandra Ivanova, Dmitry Vetrov, and Aibek Alanov. Guide-and-rescale: Self- guidance mechanism for effective tuning-free real image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01322, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation

    Narek Tumanyan, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1921–1930, 2023. 3

    1921

  29. [37]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017. 3

    2017

  30. [38]

    Inversion-free image editing with language-guided dif- fusion models

    Sihan Xu, Yidong Huang, Jiayi Pan, Ziqiao Ma, and Joyce Chai. Inversion-free image editing with language-guided dif- fusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9452– 9461, 2024. 2, 6, 7

    2024

  31. [39]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 586–595, 2018. 7 10

    2018

  32. [2024]

    Accessed: 2024-10-07. 1, 2, 6

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.