Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Constrained Diffusion with Trust Sampling

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper claims that treating each denoising step as a bounded optimization—multiple normalized gradient steps on the proxy loss, stopped by a variance-based trust schedule and a predicted-noise manifold boundary—makes training-free…

desk verdict A plausible and interesting guidance method, but the paper's own tables disagree on the main FID numbers, so the headline quantitative claims need a careful re-run before I'd trust them. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10932 v1 pith:AVJMLSP5 submitted 2024-11-17 cs.LG cs.CV

William Huang , Yifeng Jiang , Tom Van Wouwe , C. Karen Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords constraineddiffusiontraining-freeguidanceloss-guidedtrustschedulestatemanifoldinverseproblems3DhumanmotiongenerationDDIM
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 tries to establish that training-free loss-guided diffusion becomes more accurate and more efficient if each denoising step is treated as a fresh constrained optimization rather than a single gradient update. Its central claim is that taking several normalized gradient steps on the proxy constraint loss, bounded by a trust schedule tied to diffusion noise and by an estimated state-manifold boundary, improves constraint satisfaction and realism relative to existing methods on image restoration and 3D motion generation. If this is right, a pretrained unconditional diffusion model can be adapted to a new constraint at inference time by plugging in a differentiable loss, with no retraining and with a smaller compute budget than previous guidance schemes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the inner optimization loop wrapped around each DDIM denoising step. Starting from the DDIM prediction $\mu_\theta$, the sample $x^*_{t-1}$ is moved by repeated normalized gradient steps of the proxy constraint loss $L(\hat{x}_0(x^*), y)$ with step size $w$, up to $J_t = g_{\text{trust}}(t)$ iterations; the loop also stops early if the predicted noise norm $\|\epsilon_\theta(x^*_{t-1}, t)\|$ exceeds a threshold $\epsilon_{\max}$, the estimated boundary of the state manifold $M_{t,\delta}$, defined as the set of intermediate samples the diffusion model has likely seen during training with probability at least $1-\delta$. The trust schedule $g_{\text{trust}}(t)$ is a constant or linear function of the timestep, justified by a Jensen-inequality bound showing that the gap between the true conditional $p(y|x')$ and the proxy $p(y|\hat{x}_0)$ grows with the variance of $x_0$ given $x'$. This machinery converts a fixed one-step guidance rule into a per-timestep optimization with two termination criteria.

What would settle it

Sweep the inner-loop cap $J_t$ on a task where the surrogate gradient is known to misalign with the true posterior, such as a strongly nonlinear measurement, and record per-timestep constraint error and FID/LPIPS; if quality peaks at $J_t = 1$ or worsens monotonically as more inner steps are allowed, the multi-step trust assumption fails. A second check is to fix one trust schedule across all tasks and datasets without per-task endpoint tuning: if performance collapses, the claimed variance-based schedule is not self-contained.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the standard one-gradient-step alternation in training-free guided diffusion is suboptimal, and that solving each timestep's constrained problem $\max_{x'} p(y|x')$ subject to $x' \sim p(x_t)$ with several inner iterations produces better samples. The paper argues that the proxy objective $p(y|\hat{x}_0(x'))$ is only trustworthy while the underlying variance is small, so the number of allowed inner steps follows a trust schedule derived from the diffusion variance; and that leaving the model's state manifold can be detected by the predicted noise magnitude $\|\epsilon_\theta(x', t)\|$, which triggers early termination. In the paper's evaluation, the resulting algorithm outperforms existing loss-guided baselines on FFHQ and ImageNet for super-resolution, box inpainting, and Gaussian deblurring, and on several motion-control tasks, while using comparable or fewer neural function evaluations.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that repeatedly nudging the sample along the gradient of the approximate constraint loss keeps improving the true chance of satisfying the constraint for the whole allowed number of nudges; if those nudges instead overfit the approximation, quality would drop, and the paper does not derive the trust schedule from its variance bound but fits the schedule's endpoints per task and dataset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pretrained unconditional diffusion models can take on new constraints at inference time by plugging in a differentiable loss, since the algorithm modifies only the sampling loop, not the training objective.
  • On the three image-restoration tasks, the method reports substantially lower FID and LPIPS than the compared guidance methods on both FFHQ and ImageNet, with the largest gains on super-resolution.
  • The method retains most of its quality when the neural function evaluation budget drops from 1000 to 600, a regime where the compared baselines degrade noticeably.
  • The same procedure transfers to 3D human motion with nonlinear observation maps, inequality constraints, and multiple simultaneous constraints, indicating the mechanism is not image-specific.
  • The manifold-boundary stop reduces the number of neural function evaluations by 10-20% without a substantial quality loss, which directly lowers inference cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the variance-based trust rationale is correct, the trust schedule's start and end points could in principle be derived from the diffusion variance schedule itself instead of being fitted per task and dataset, making the method parameter-free.
  • The predicted-noise-norm boundary could serve as a general diagnostic for whether any inference-time intervention has pushed a sample off the model's manifold, beyond this particular algorithm.
  • The same multi-step inner-loop idea might improve other training-free conditioning schemes, such as classifier guidance or energy-based guidance, wherever the same proxy-loss trust issue arises.
  • The paper's linear trust schedule is probably only an approximation of the true trust curve; a per-timestep optimal stopping rule could be measured by sweeping $J_t$ and would sharpen the method's theoretical grounding.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Trust Sampling, a training-free loss-guided diffusion method. At each DDIM denoising step, the method treats constraint guidance as an optimization problem: it takes multiple normalized gradient steps on the proxy constraint loss, limits the number of steps by a trust schedule gtrust(t) based on the diffusion timestep, and terminates early when the predicted noise norm exceeds a threshold epsilon_max interpreted as the state-manifold boundary. The authors evaluate on image super-resolution, box inpainting, and Gaussian deblurring (FFHQ, ImageNet) and on several 3D human motion tasks, comparing against DPS, DPS+DSG, and LGD-MC, and report improved FID/LPIPS and constraint satisfaction in image tasks and a 'best balance' in motion tasks.

Significance. If substantiated, the method would be a useful inference-time technique for imposing hard constraints on pretrained unconditional diffusion models without additional training, and the optimization perspective (multiple gradient steps with a trust schedule) is a reasonable and potentially transferable idea. The paper includes ablations, discusses the effect of the manifold-boundary threshold, and releases code. However, the empirical evidence is currently not reliable: the main image results are internally inconsistent across tables, no statistical variability is reported, and the motion results do not clearly support the 'significant improvement' claim. The trust-schedule and threshold parameters are also tuned per task, so the claimed generality is not demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Tables 1 and 4] The central quantitative claim is undermined by an internal inconsistency in the FID numbers. Table 1 reports Trust Super-Resolution FID 16.99 on '1000 validation images of FFHQ 256×256', whereas Table 4, using the same declared hyperparameters from Table 7 (Start=2, End=6, epsmax=441 for SR), reports Trust FID 35.73 on '100 validation images of FFHQ 256×256'. The DPS baseline also changes from 29.48 (Table 1) to 64.66 (Table 4). The text in Section 5.1 states that both datasets were evaluated on 100 validation images, which directly contradicts the Table 1 caption. No seeds, confidence intervals, or per-sample outputs are provided, so the discrepancy cannot be dismissed as sampling noise. Because the paper's headline claim is that Trust Sampling 'outperforms diffusion model baselines by a significant margin,' this inconsistency must be resolved by reporting a single consistent evaluation protocol with per-sample outputs and error bars.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (9), Table 7] The trust schedule is not actually derived from the variance bound. Eq. (9) shows that the approximation error E[f(x0)] - f(E[x0]) is bounded by a term proportional to Var(x), but the paper never connects the diffusion process variance schedule to the specific linear schedule gtrust(t) = m·t + c. Instead, Table 7 lists Start and End values per task and dataset, and Section 5.3 states that 'the best slope is dependent of the task and NFEs.' This means the method's advantage may come from per-task tuning rather than a principled schedule. A held-out validation protocol (e.g., selecting schedule parameters on a validation split and reporting test performance), or a systematic sensitivity analysis across many tasks, is needed to support the claim of a general inference-time method. The conclusion (Section 6) also admits that heuristic parameters are 'currently manually adjusted for each base diffusion model,' reinforcing this concern.
  3. [Section 5.2, Table 3] The motion results do not support the paper's claim of outperforming baselines. For root trajectory tracking, Trust Sampling has higher FID (561.6) than DPS (542.8) and higher constraint violation (0.026 m) than DSG (0.022 m). For right-hand/left-foot tracking, Trust has higher FID (694.1 vs. 604.7 for DPS) and higher constraint violation (0.038 m vs. 0.035 m for DSG). The text says Trust 'strikes the best balance,' but the table shows DPS and DSG each dominate Trust on at least one of the two reported metrics. Thus the claim of significant improvement in 'drastically different domains' is not supported by the reported evidence in the motion domain.
  4. [Section 3.2, Table 6] The manifold-boundary criterion is heuristic and highly sensitive to the threshold. The derivation around Eq. (12) argues that ||epsilon_theta(x',t)|| can indicate whether x' is outside M_{t,delta}, but no formal connection or calibration is established. Table 6 shows that for Super-Resolution, changing epsmax from 438 to 441 changes Trust's FID from 50.81 to 35.46, and the 'acceptable range' claim is not supported by these numbers. Since the early-termination component is a core part of the algorithm, this sensitivity needs to be either justified theoretically or documented with a clear tuning protocol that is not itself fitted to the test set.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2] There is a typo: 'Howver' should be 'However'.
  2. [Appendix A] The main text Algorithm 1 defines J_t directly as gtrust(t), but Appendix A says the actual J_t is determined by stochastic rounding of an arithmetic expectation. This should be clarified in the main algorithm description to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 5.1] The text says '100 validation images each' but Table 1 caption says '1000 validation images of FFHQ'; this must be corrected and made consistent with the actual evaluation protocol.
  4. [Section 3.3, Algorithm 1] The inner-loop termination condition uses ||epsilon_theta(x*_{t-1}, t)|| with timestep t while x* is being updated toward x_{t-1}; it would help to state explicitly why the predicted noise at the updated point is evaluated against the previous timestep's manifold boundary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation is empirical and externally benchmarked, with no fitted quantity relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular by construction. Equations (4)-(9) give a variance-based bound on the proxy gap E[f(x0)] - f(E[x0]) for a scalar proxy, but they do not derive the trust schedule; the specific schedule gtrust(t) = m*t + c is an empirical design whose endpoints are selected per task and dataset (Table 7) to meet NFE budgets, and Section 6 concedes that the heuristic parameters are manually adjusted. This is conventional hyperparameter fitting, not a fitted quantity being presented as a prediction. Likewise, epsilon_max is calibrated from unconstrained runs of the base model and then swept in Table 6; it is a threshold, not a predicted outcome. The manifold boundary estimator uses ||epsilon_theta(x',t)|| as an out-of-manifold heuristic, which the paper states explicitly. The central image and motion claims are evaluated against external FID/LPIPS/constraint metrics using pretrained unconditional models, so the reported superiority is not forced by the algorithm's definitions. The only same-lab citation (EDGE, ref. [52]) supplies the motion architecture, but the motion model is trained and evaluated by the authors, and the citation is not load-bearing evidence for the trust-sampling claim. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked. Separate from circularity, the main-table FID values (Table 1) and the ablation FID values (Table 4) under the same declared FFHQ hyperparameters differ by roughly a factor of two, and the sample-size label is inconsistent with the Section 5.1 text; this is an evidentiary and correctness concern, not a circularity issue.

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

The central claim rests on two fitted hyperparameters per task (trust schedule endpoints and epsilon_max), plus a step size. The theory in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 motivates but does not determine these values. The manifold boundary is used as an efficiency stop, not as a correctness guarantee.

free parameters (5)
  • Trust schedule start value gtrust(1) = 2 or 0 per task (Table 7)
    Maximum number of gradient iterations at the cleanest denoising step; chosen per dataset/task to optimize FID/LPIPS, not derived from the variance bound.
  • Trust schedule end value gtrust(T) = 6 or 8 or 4 per task (Table 7)
    Maximum gradient iterations at the noisiest step; selected per task.
  • epsilon_max manifold threshold = 441 or 442
    Set by observing the average predicted noise norm on unconstrained samples; Table 6 shows performance varies strongly outside 440 to 442.
  • Guidance step size w = 0.5 or 1.0
    Fixed per task by hand, as stated in Section 3.3.
  • Number of DDIM steps = 200
    Trust uses 200 DDIM steps to match around 1000 NFEs; this discretization is an implementation choice that affects results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The approximation p(y|xt) is close to p(y|xhat0(xt)), so minimizing L(xhat0, y) over x' improves sampling from p(y|xt).
    Used in Eqs. (5) to (7); the paper proves only a Jensen bound for the scalar gap and does not estimate the relaxation threshold d.
  • domain assumption The Jensen-gap bound for scalar random variables transfers to high-dimensional diffusion and justifies a trust schedule based on variance.
    Section 3.1 says a similar analysis exists for the multivariant case but no high-dimensional derivation is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The norm of the predicted noise epsilon_theta(x', t) indicates whether x' lies on the state manifold boundary M_t,delta.
    Section 3.2 argues that in-manifold samples have integrand close to N(0,I), but a standard normal in D dimensions has norm near sqrt(D), not zero; the threshold is fitted empirically from unconstrained samples.
  • ad hoc to paper A linear trust schedule gtrust(t) = m t + c captures the trustworthiness of the proxy across diffusion levels.
    Section 3.1 asserts simple schedules work 'surprisingly well'; the linear form is not derived, and its direction in Table 7 conflicts with the verbal justification in Section 5.3.
  • domain assumption The base diffusion models are sufficiently well trained that xhat0(xt) and epsilon_theta(xt, t) are meaningful for guidance.
    Standard assumption in DPS-style guidance; not independently verified in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constrained Diffusion with Trust Sampling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AVJMLSP5

@misc{pith2026241110932,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constrained Diffusion with Trust Sampling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AVJMLSP5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10932}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models have demonstrated significant promise in various generative tasks; however, they often struggle to satisfy challenging constraints. Our approach addresses this limitation by rethinking training-free loss-guided diffusion from an optimization perspective. We formulate a series of constrained optimizations throughout the inference process of a diffusion model. In each optimization, we allow the sample to take multiple steps along the gradient of the proxy constraint function until we can no longer trust the proxy, according to the variance at each diffusion level. Additionally, we estimate the state manifold of diffusion model to allow for early termination when the sample starts to wander away from the state manifold at each diffusion step. Trust sampling effectively balances between following the unconditional diffusion model and adhering to the loss guidance, enabling more flexible and accurate constrained generation. We demonstrate the efficacy of our method through extensive experiments on complex tasks, and in drastically different domains of images and 3D motion generation, showing significant improvements over existing methods in terms of generation quality. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/will-s-h/trust-sampling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10932 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trust Sampling can be applied to complex constraint problems in drastically different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results on solving linear inverse problems. The left shows examples of box inpainting; the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results for Trust on Gaussian Deblurring. The first two rows of images are from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results for Trust on Box Inpainting. The first two rows of images are from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results for Trust on Super-Resolution. The first two rows of images are from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results for Trust on different motion tasks. For “Jumping” the horizontal dotted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ambient diffusion posterior sampling: Solving inverse problems with diffusion models trained on corrupted data

    Asad Aali, Giannis Daras, Brett Levac, Sidharth Kumar, Alexandros G Dimakis, and Jonathan I Tamir. Ambient diffusion posterior sampling: Solving inverse problems with diffusion models trained on corrupted data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08728, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    ACCAD MoCap Dataset

    Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design. ACCAD MoCap Dataset. URL https://accad. osu.edu/research/motion-lab/mocap-system-and-data

  3. [3]

    Ijaz Akhter and Michael J. Black. Pose-conditioned joint angle limits for 3D human pose reconstruction. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 1446–1455, June

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Listen, denoise, action! audio-driven motion synthesis with diffusion models

    Simon Alexanderson, Rajmund Nagy, Jonas Beskow, and Gustav Eje Henter. Listen, denoise, action! audio-driven motion synthesis with diffusion models. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 42(4):1–20, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Digital dance ethnography: Organizing large dance collections

    Andreas Aristidou, Ariel Shamir, and Yiorgos Chrysanthou. Digital dance ethnography: Organizing large dance collections. J. Comput. Cult. Herit., 12(4), November 2019. ISSN 1556-4673. doi: 10.1145/3344383. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3344383

    doi:10.1145/3344383 2019

  6. [6]

    Universal guidance for diffusion models

    Arpit Bansal, Hong-Min Chu, Avi Schwarzschild, Soumyadip Sengupta, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. Universal guidance for diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 843–852, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Federica Bogo, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. Dynamic FAUST: Registering human bodies in motion. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 5573–5582, July 2017. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.591

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.591 2017

  8. [8]

    CMU MoCap Dataset

    Carnegie Mellon University. CMU MoCap Dataset. URL http://mocap.cs.cmu.edu

    work page

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Human4d: A human-centric multimodal dataset for motions and immersive media

    Anargyros Chatzitofis, Leonidas Saroglou, Prodromos Boutis, Petros Drakoulis, Nikolaos Zioulis, Shishir Subramanyam, Bart Kevelham, Caecilia Charbonnier, Pablo Cesar, Dimitrios Zarpalas, et al. Human4d: A human-centric multimodal dataset for motions and immersive media. IEEE A...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Improving diffusion models for inverse problems using manifold constraints

    Hyungjin Chung, Byeongsu Sim, Dohoon Ryu, and Jong Chul Ye. Improving diffusion models for inverse problems using manifold constraints. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35: 25683–25696, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Mccann, Marc L

    Hyungjin Chung, Jeongsol Kim, Michael T. Mccann, Marc L. Klasky, and Jong Chul Ye. Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis, 2021

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alex Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Diffusion posterior sampling for linear inverse problem solving: A filtering perspective

    Zehao Dou and Yang Song. Diffusion posterior sampling for linear inverse problem solving: A filtering perspective. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Reduce, reuse, recycle: Compositional generation with energy-based diffusion models and mcmc

    Yilun Du, Conor Durkan, Robin Strudel, Joshua B Tenenbaum, Sander Dieleman, Rob Fergus, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Arnaud Doucet, and Will Sussman Grathwohl. Reduce, reuse, recycle: Compositional generation with energy-based diffusion models and mcmc. InInternational conference on...

  8. [16]

    Saeed Ghorbani, Kimia Mahdaviani, Anne Thaler, Konrad Kording, Douglas James Cook, Gunnar Blohm, and Nikolaus F. Troje. MoVi: A large multipurpose motion and video dataset, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Diffusion models as plug-and- play priors

    Alexandros Graikos, Nikolay Malkin, Nebojsa Jojic, and Dimitris Samaras. Diffusion models as plug-and- play priors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:14715–14728, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Action2motion: Conditioned generation of 3d human motions

    Chuan Guo, Xinxin Zuo, Sen Wang, Shihao Zou, Qingyao Sun, Annan Deng, Minglun Gong, and Li Cheng. Action2motion: Conditioned generation of 3d human motions. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , MM ’20, page 2021–2029, New York, NY , USA, 2020...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Manifold preserving guided diffusion

    Yutong He, Naoki Murata, Chieh-Hsin Lai, Yuhta Takida, Toshimitsu Uesaka, Dongjun Kim, Wei-Hsiang Liao, Yuki Mitsufuji, J Zico Kolter, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Stefano Ermon. Manifold preserving guided diffusion. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representat...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance, 2022

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pages 6840–6851. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2020. URL...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Cascaded diffusion models for high fidelity image generation

    Jonathan Ho, Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, David J Fleet, Mohammad Norouzi, and Tim Salimans. Cascaded diffusion models for high fidelity image generation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 (47):1–33, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Video diffusion models

    Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Video diffusion models. arXiv:2204.03458, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sleight of hand: Perception of finger motion from reduced marker sets

    Ludovic Hoyet, Kenneth Ryall, Rachel McDonnell, and Carol O’Sullivan. Sleight of hand: Perception of finger motion from reduced marker sets. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games , I3D ’12, page 79–86, New York, NY , USA, 2012. ISBN ...

    2012

  18. [26]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4401–4410, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Denoising diffusion restoration models

    Bahjat Kawar, Michael Elad, Stefano Ermon, and Jiaming Song. Denoising diffusion restoration models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:23593–23606, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    BMLhandball Motion Capture Database

    Bio Motion Lab. BMLhandball Motion Capture Database. URL https://www.biomotionlab.ca//

  21. [29]

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, and Michael J. Black. MoSh: Motion and Shape Capture from Sparse Markers. ACM Trans. Graph., 33(6), November 2014. doi: 10.1145/2661229.2661273. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2661229.2661273

    2014

  22. [30]

    Eyes JAPAN Co. Ltd. Eyes Japan MoCap Dataset. URL http://mocapdata.com

  23. [31]

    Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2022

    Andreas Lugmayr, Martin Danelljan, Andres Romero, Fisher Yu, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation

    Shitong Luo and Wei Hu. Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2837–2845, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Troje, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J

    Naureen Mahmood, Nima Ghorbani, Nikolaus F. Troje, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. AMASS: Archive of motion capture as surface shapes. In 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 5441–5450, October 2019. doi: 10.1109/ICCV .2019.00554

    2019

  26. [34]

    Mandery, Ö

    C. Mandery, Ö. Terlemez, M. Do, N. Vahrenkamp, and T. Asfour. The KIT whole-body human motion database. In 2015 International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR) , pages 329–336, July 2015. doi: 10.1109/ICAR.2015.7251476

    2015

  27. [35]

    Unifying rep- resentations and large-scale whole-body motion databases for studying human motion

    Christian Mandery, Ömer Terlemez, Martin Do, Nikolaus Vahrenkamp, and Tamim Asfour. Unifying rep- resentations and large-scale whole-body motion databases for studying human motion. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 32(4):796–809, 2016. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2016.2572685

    2016

  28. [36]

    A variational perspective on solving inverse problems with diffusion models

    Morteza Mardani, Jiaming Song, Jan Kautz, and Arash Vahdat. A variational perspective on solving inverse problems with diffusion models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Müller, T

    M. Müller, T. Röder, M. Clausen, B. Eberhardt, B. Krüger, and A. Weber. Documentation mocap database HDM05. Technical Report CG-2007-2, Universität Bonn, June 2007. 12

    2007

  30. [38]

    Modi: Unconditional motion synthesis from diverse data

    Sigal Raab, Inbal Leibovitch, Peizhuo Li, Kfir Aberman, Olga Sorkine-Hornung, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Modi: Unconditional motion synthesis from diverse data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13873–13883, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    The little engine that could: Regularization by denoising (red)

    Yaniv Romano, Michael Elad, and Peyman Milanfar. The little engine that could: Regularization by denoising (red). SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences , 10(4):1804–1844, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Beyond first-order tweedie: Solving inverse problems using latent diffusion

    Litu Rout, Yujia Chen, Abhishek Kumar, Constantine Caramanis, Sanjay Shakkottai, and Wen-Sheng Chu. Beyond first-order tweedie: Solving inverse problems using latent diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00852, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dream- booth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation, 2023

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dream- booth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    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 informatio...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Sigal, A

    L. Sigal, A. Balan, and M. J. Black. HumanEva: Synchronized video and motion capture dataset and baseline algorithm for evaluation of articulated human motion. International Journal of Computer Vision, 87(4):4–27, March 2010. doi: 10.1007/s11263-009-0273-6

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models, 2022

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Pseudoinverse-guided diffusion models for inverse problems

    Jiaming Song, Arash Vahdat, Morteza Mardani, and Jan Kautz. Pseudoinverse-guided diffusion models for inverse problems. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Loss-guided diffusion models for plug-and-play controllable generation

    Jiaming Song, Qinsheng Zhang, Hongxu Yin, Morteza Mardani, Ming-Yu Liu, Jan Kautz, Yongxin Chen, and Arash Vahdat. Loss-guided diffusion models for plug-and-play controllable generation. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 32483–32498. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Removing structured noise with diffusion models

    Tristan SW Stevens, Hans van Gorp, Faik C Meral, Junseob Shin, Jason Yu, Jean-Luc Robert, and Ruud JG van Sloun. Removing structured noise with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05290, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Equivariant plug-and-play image reconstruction

    Matthieu Terris, Thomas Moreau, Nelly Pustelnik, and Julian Tachella. Equivariant plug-and-play image reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01831, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Human motion diffusion model

    Guy Tevet, Sigal Raab, Brian Gordon, Yonatan Shafir, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Amit H Bermano. Human motion diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14916, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Total capture: 3d human pose estimation fusing video and inertial sensors

    Matthew Trumble, Andrew Gilbert, Charles Malleson, Adrian Hilton, and John Collomosse. Total capture: 3d human pose estimation fusing video and inertial sensors. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), pages 14.1–14.13, September 2017. ISBN 1-901725-60-...

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    Edge: Editable dance generation from music

    Jonathan Tseng, Rodrigo Castellon, and Karen Liu. Edge: Editable dance generation from music. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 448–458, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    SFU Motion Capture Database

    Simon Fraser University and National University of Singapore. SFU Motion Capture Database. URL http://mocap.cs.sfu.ca/

  46. [54]

    Lion: Latent point diffusion models for 3d shape generation

    Arash Vahdat, Francis Williams, Zan Gojcic, Or Litany, Sanja Fidler, Karsten Kreis, et al. Lion: Latent point diffusion models for 3d shape generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35: 10021–10039, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Zero-shot image restoration using denoising diffusion null-space model

    Yinhuai Wang, Jiwen Yu, and Jian Zhang. Zero-shot image restoration using denoising diffusion null-space model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.00490, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Diffusion posterior proximal sampling for image restoration

    Hongjie Wu, Linchao He, Mingqin Zhang, Dongdong Chen, Kunming Luo, Mengting Luo, Ji-Zhe Zhou, Hu Chen, and Jiancheng Lv. Diffusion posterior proximal sampling for image restoration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16907, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Omnicontrol: Control any joint at any time for human motion generation

    Yiming Xie, Varun Jampani, Lei Zhong, Deqing Sun, and Huaizu Jiang. Omnicontrol: Control any joint at any time for human motion generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08580, 2023. 13

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Guidance with spherical gaussian constraint for conditional diffusion

    Lingxiao Yang, Shutong Ding, Yifan Cai, Jingyi Yu, Jingya Wang, and Ye Shi. Guidance with spherical gaussian constraint for conditional diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03201, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Freedom: Training-free energy- guided conditional diffusion model

    Jiwen Yu, Yinhuai Wang, Chen Zhao, Bernard Ghanem, and Jian Zhang. Freedom: Training-free energy- guided conditional diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 23174–23184, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models, 2023

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    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

    2018

  54. [62]

    Denoising diffusion models for plug-and-play image restoration

    Yuanzhi Zhu, Kai Zhang, Jingyun Liang, Jiezhang Cao, Bihan Wen, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Denoising diffusion models for plug-and-play image restoration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1219–1229, 2023. 14 A Exp...

    2023

  55. [2015]

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298751

    2015

Pith tools

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