Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 22 references

Enhancing Low Dose Computed Tomography Images Using Consistency Training Techniques

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 consistency models—single-step generative networks—improve markedly when trained with a beta-distributed noise schedule and a sinusoidal timestep curriculum, and that the same recipe, conditioned on low-dose CT…

desk verdict The unconditional training tweaks are worth a look, but the LDCT table is an unsourced copy, so the paper's main claim is unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12181 v1 pith:RGX5VUY3 submitted 2024-11-19 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Mahmut S. Gokmen , Jie Zhang , Ge Wang , Jin Chen , Cody Bumgardner This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords consistencymodelssingle-stepsamplinglow-doseCTdenoisingbetanoisedistributionsinusoidalcurriculumweightedattentiongatesschedulingtraining
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

Diffusion-based image generation is powerful but slow because it needs many network evaluations to denoise step by step; consistency models replace that loop with a single evaluation, and this paper claims their training procedure can be substantially improved. The authors introduce a $\beta$ noise distribution, whose two shape parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ tilt the training batch toward high or low noise, combined with a sinusoidal curriculum that grows the number of timesteps smoothly, a recipe they call High Noise Improved Consistency Training (HN-iCT). At a single function evaluation, HN-iCT reports FID 10.50 on CIFAR-10 and 12.31 on CelebA with a 234M-parameter model, beating 897M-parameter CT and iCT baselines, and an image-conditioned variant with weighted attention gates reports PSNR 43.68–44.07 and LPIPS 0.016 on the Mayo low-dose CT validation set. If these numbers hold, clinical-grade low-dose CT enhancement would become a single network pass rather than a multi-step diffusion process, at a fraction of the compute.

What carries the argument

Three mechanisms carry the argument. The $\beta$ noise distribution, defined on $[0,1]$ with density $f(x;\alpha,\beta) = x^{\alpha-1}(1-x)^{\beta-1}/B(\alpha,\beta)$, replaces the log-normal schedule used by iCT; it lets the training batch be tilted toward high noise levels while keeping low noise heavily weighted. The sinusoidal curriculum sets the number of timesteps as $N(k) = \min(\lfloor s_1 \sin(\pi \cdot 3k / 2K) + s_0 \rfloor + 1, s_1 + 1)$ with $s_0 = 20$, $s_1 = 250$, growing the variety of noise levels smoothly so adjacent trajectory points remain close enough to learn consistent mappings. For the conditional model, the Weighted Attention Gate (WAG) squares the attention map and combines features extracted from the conditioned input with skip connections at a default weight of 0.8, so the low-dose CT image supervises the unconditional generation without dominating it. The machinery's job is to make the single-step consistency loss—the distance between the student network's outputs at adjacent noise levels—trainable along a well-populated, well-ordered trajectory.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to retrain with the reported recipe while keeping the evaluation sets untouched: pick $\alpha$ and $\beta$ on a CIFAR-10 validation split and measure test FID on data the tuning never saw, and likewise choose $\alpha = 0.5$ and the WAG weight on a Mayo training subset before touching the validation slices; if the margins over iCT (13.50 to 10.50 on CIFAR-10) and over the listed CT baselines persist under that discipline, the claim is predictive. The table header 'copied from other paper' on the LDCT results means the baseline PSNR and LPIPS numbers should be regenerated under identical preprocessing and model configuration before the comparison is taken as settled. The ablation caption also writes $\beta = 1.5$, $\alpha = 5$, the reverse of the main text's $\alpha = 1.5$, $\beta = 5$, so the hyperparameters used in the ablation table need to be clarified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that consistency training fails mainly because its noise distribution and curriculum misallocate training effort, and that both can be fixed without new network machinery. The authors report that mixing high noise levels into mini-batches—up to roughly 4% of samples drawn from noise levels 40 to 80—sharply improves denoising, and that the $\beta$ distribution captures this effect with two tunable shape parameters ($\alpha = 1.5$, $\beta = 5$ for unconditional tasks; $\alpha = 0.5$ for the conditional model). The sinusoidal curriculum replaces the improved curriculum's doubling of the timestep count every 50k steps with $N(k) = \min(\lfloor s_1 \sin(\pi \cdot 3k / 2K) + s_0 \rfloor + 1, s_1 + 1)$, with $s_0 = 20$, $s_1 = 250$, keeping trajectory points traceable as the schedule grows. Together these changes are claimed to be why a 234M-parameter HN-iCT out-scores 897M-parameter CT and iCT baselines at NFE=1 (FID 10.50 vs 14.32 and 13.50 on CIFAR-10), and why the conditioned HN-iCT-CN reduces LPIPS to 0.016 on low-dose CT. The ablation table makes the pairing direct: improved curriculum plus log-normal noise gives FID 21.19, improved plus $\beta$ 17.31, sinusoidal plus log-normal 17.85, and the full sinusoidal plus $\beta$ combination 10.51.

Load-bearing premise

The headline gains rest on empirically tuned hyperparameters ($\alpha = 1.5$, $\beta = 5$, $s_0 = 20$, $s_1 = 250$, $\alpha = 0.5$, WAG weight 0.8) that the paper states were determined by experiments on CIFAR-10, then applied without change to CelebA and the Mayo low-dose CT set; if those values were chosen with the evaluation sets in view, the reported FID and PSNR numbers measure in-sample fit rather than prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-step (NFE=1) consistency generation becomes competitive with much larger models: the same FID can be reached with roughly a quarter of the parameters of the CT and iCT baselines.
  • Low-dose CT enhancement can run in one function evaluation at 512×512 without resizing, with PSNR around 44 dB and LPIPS 0.016, above the listed multi-step diffusion baselines.
  • The $\alpha$ parameter is tied to batch size: the paper reports that smaller batches require smaller $\alpha$, giving a practical rule for transferring the noise schedule to new settings.
  • The two proposed components combine super-additively: sinusoidal curriculum plus beta noise (FID 10.51) beats either alone (17.85 and 17.31), so the claimed benefit is the pair, not either piece.
  • Because the model uses CT-style direct data learning with no pretrained teacher, the technique avoids distillation cost and is not capped by a teacher model's quality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the gain comes from covering high noise levels that the log-normal schedule underweights, a natural test is whether other heavy-tailed or mixture schedules (for example, log-normal plus a fixed mass at high $\sigma$) match HN-iCT; the paper's own appendix experiments with manually mixing 4% high-noise samples suggest the mechanism, not the specific distribution, may be what matters.
  • The reported dependence of $\alpha$ on batch size hints that the schedule is compensating for the effective number of high-noise samples per update; a follow-up could make $\alpha$ a function of batch size rather than a tunable constant.
  • For clinical deployment, the meaningful comparison is against non-generative denoisers such as NLM, BM3D, and supervised CNNs as much as against diffusion baselines; the paper targets generative methods, and a dedicated clinical-reader study would be needed before drawing conclusions about diagnostic utility.
  • The WAG weighting (0.8) and the squaring of the attention map are described qualitatively; a systematic sweep of the weight parameter and attention sharpening could determine whether the reported PSNR gain is robust across patients and reconstruction kernels.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two modifications to consistency-model training: a beta noise distribution for sampling noise levels and a sinusoidal curriculum for increasing the number of noise levels during training. Together these form 'High Noise Improved Consistency Training' (HN-iCT), and when combined with a conditional architecture using 'Weighted Attention Gates' (WAG), the method is applied to low-dose CT denoising (HN-iCT-CN). The authors report that with NFE=1, HN-iCT achieves FID 10.50 on CIFAR10 and 12.31 on CelebA using a smaller model than the CT/iCT baselines, and that HN-iCT-CN achieves PSNR 43.68-44.07 and LPIPS 0.016 on the Mayo LDCT validation set, outperforming several diffusion baselines. The paper also includes an ablation study separating the effects of curriculum type and noise distribution.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible and the comparisons are fair, the paper would make a useful contribution: single-step consistency models with improved noise scheduling are of interest to the generative-modeling community, and fast LDCT denoising has clear clinical motivation. The authors are to be credited for evaluating against publicly available CT/iCT checkpoints, for providing an ablation study, and for examining the effect of high-noise-level weighting. However, the significance is conditional on resolving two load-bearing issues: the provenance and protocol of the LDCT comparison table, and the separation between hyperparameter tuning and reported evaluation. The CIFAR10 and CelebA results are also weakened by the apparent use of the same dataset for tuning and headline reporting.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Table 3] Table 3 is captioned 'Quantitative Results, copied from other paper' and provides no citation or specification of which entries were copied. Since the central LDCT claim of the paper rests entirely on this table, the listed baseline numbers (DDPM, EDM, DDIM, CD, PFGM++, PS-PFCM) cannot be verified to use the same data split, CT window/level preprocessing, slice selection, evaluation mask, or metric implementation as the HN-iCT-CN entries. The unusually large LPIPS reduction from 0.152 to 0.016 and the absence of a controlled protocol make this a load-bearing unsupported comparison. The authors must either reproduce the baselines under the identical evaluation protocol or provide a precise citation and explicitly state which rows were copied and which were newly computed, together with complete evaluation details.
  2. [§3.2, §4.2, §4.3] The hyperparameters appear to be tuned on the same datasets used to report the headline numbers. Section 3.2 contains the note 'CLAIM and modify: The set of parameters were empirically determined by using CIFAR10', and Section 4.2 reports CIFAR10 FID with α=1.5, β=5. Similarly, Section 4.3 states that α=0.5 was selected based on experiments on the LDCT validation set, and Table 3 reports results on that same validation set. Unless the authors document a clear separation between tuning and evaluation—for example, a validation split used for selection and a held-out test split for final numbers—the reported FID and PSNR improvements are in-sample fits rather than predictive comparisons.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (9)] The proposed sinusoidal curriculum as written in Eq. (9) is non-monotonic: for k in [0,K], the term |sin(π·3·k/(2K))| reaches 1 at k=K/3, returns to 0 at k=2K/3, and then rises again to 1 at k=K. Thus N(k) increases, then decreases back to s0, then increases again. This is inconsistent with the text's description of a curriculum that 'gradually decreases the rate at which the number of noise varieties increases across levels.' The authors should clarify whether the intended schedule is monotonic and provide the exact discrete implementation used in training.
  4. [§4.4, Table 4] Table 4's caption states 'β=1.5, α=5 for Beta distribution', whereas Table 2 and Section 4.3 use α=1.5/β=5 and α=0.5/β=5, respectively. Because the beta shape parameters directly control the noise-level weighting, this inconsistency prevents a reader from comparing the ablation results with the main reported results. The values must be corrected and the notation made consistent throughout.
  5. [§3.1, §4.3, §5] The paper attributes the medical-image denoising improvement to the Weighted Attention Gate (WAG) modules, but no ablation isolates the contribution of WAG. All HN-iCT-CN rows in Table 3 use WAG, so the reported PSNR/LPIPS gains cannot be attributed to the WAG mechanism rather than to the beta noise distribution, the sinusoidal curriculum, or the conditional architecture as a whole. An ablation with and without WAG under the same training budget is needed to support the conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2, equations] Equation numbers are duplicated: Eq. (5) is used for both the consistency matching loss and the log-normal noise distribution, and Eq. (7) is used for both the EMA update and the pseudo-Huber loss. Please renumber.
  2. [§4.2] The text says 'all models compared in table 2 are trained locally' but also refers to 'publicly available sources' and 'versions from v1 to v3.' Please clarify which rows are locally trained, which are taken from public checkpoints, and what training hyperparameters were used for the locally trained baselines.
  3. [References] References [6] and [7] are the same Karras et al. paper and should be merged or distinguished.
  4. [§3.1] The sentence 'comprehends iAG modules' appears to be a typo; it should likely read 'comprises' or 'includes.'
  5. [§4.3] The discussion of the α parameter states that 'a reduction in batch size leads to a decrease in α,' but no quantitative evidence or experimental protocol is given. Please either provide the supporting experiments or state this as a hypothesis.
  6. [Appendix A] Table 5 lists FID values for models trained with high-noise-level ratios, but the text says 'adding high level noise at 10% of the mini-batch length has effects on denoising performance conversely' without reporting a 10% row. Clarify whether the 10% experiment is omitted or reported elsewhere.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Two headline results are partly in-sample: the beta-schedule hyperparameters are tuned on the same CIFAR10 and Mayo validation sets whose FID/PSNR are then reported as gains, and the LDCT comparison table is unprovenanced.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (Beta Distribution), evaluated in Table 2 of Section 4.2]
    "Particularly, it is possible increasing the weight of high level noises in distribution up to 4% by adjusting α = 0.5 and β = 5. CLAIM and modify: The set of parameters were empirically determined by using CIFAR10."

    The alpha/beta parameters of the proposed beta noise schedule are explicitly fitted on CIFAR10, and then Table 2 reports the CIFAR10 FID of 10.50 for HN-iCT-Small as the headline evidence that the method 'significantly outperforms basic CT and iCT training techniques.' The dataset used for hyperparameter selection is the same dataset used for the headline evaluation, so the reported CIFAR10 improvement is a selected, in-sample result rather than an independent prediction of the method's benefit.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3 (Image Conditioned Generation), Table 3]
    "Based on the results from different tests, the optimal α value for achieving the best denoising performance is set to 0.5."

    The LDCT headline numbers in Table 3 — PSNR 43.68/44.07 and LPIPS 0.016/0.017 — are produced with α=0.5, a value chosen 'based on the results from different tests' on the same Mayo validation set (remaining two patients, 1136 slices) that Table 3 evaluates. The validation set is thus used both to select α and to report the best PSNR/LPIPS values, so the claimed advantage over the listed baselines is partly a fitted selection rather than an out-of-sample prediction.

full rationale

The paper's formal machinery is not a tautology: the sinusoidal curriculum (Eq. 9–10) and the WAG modules in Section 3.1 are not derived from the target FID/PSNR numbers, and the CelebA unconditional result transfers hyperparameters tuned on CIFAR10 to a different dataset, which gives the method some independent content. The circularity that is present is narrower but concrete. Section 3.2 states that the beta distribution parameters were 'empirically determined by using CIFAR10,' and Table 2 then uses CIFAR10 FID as the main evidence that HN-iCT beats CT and iCT; that is an in-sample hyperparameter fit used as a prediction. Section 4.3 similarly reports that α=0.5 was selected 'based on the results from different tests' and then evaluates that same choice on the same validation set in Table 3, making the reported LDCT PSNR/LPIPS partly a selected result. A separate, non-circular credibility problem is that Table 3 is captioned 'Quantitative Results, copied from other paper' without a citation, so the baseline protocol cannot be verified; this is a provenance/correctness risk rather than a circular derivation. Because the core contributions still include a novel curriculum, a beta-distribution idea, and a WAG architecture, and because the unconditional method is also evaluated on CelebA with parameters selected on CIFAR10, the paper is not wholly circular; however, the two main performance claims are materially weakened by in-sample hyperparameter selection, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on inherited consistency model theory plus a set of empirically tuned hyperparameters (alpha, beta, s0, s1, WAG weight). The paper provides no derivation for these values and does not demonstrate that they generalize outside the datasets used to tune them. The WAG module is the only newly introduced component, and its evidence is internal to the reported experiments.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (beta distribution shape) = 1.5 (unconditional), 0.5 (conditional)
    Controls the balance between low and high noise levels; empirically tuned on CIFAR10 and LDCT validation (Sections 3.2 and 4.3).
  • beta (beta distribution shape) = 5 (also listed as 1.5 in Table 4 caption)
    Second shape parameter for noise sampling; chosen empirically. The caption inconsistency in Table 4 shows the tuning is fragile.
  • s0, s1 (sinusoidal curriculum endpoints) = s0=20, s1=250
    Set to 'prevent marginal increases' in noise variety (Section 3.2); no derivation is provided.
  • WAG weight parameter w = 0.8
    Scaling factor for conditioned features in the Weighted Attention Gate (Figure 2 caption); chosen by hand.
  • High noise level ratio (manual injection) = 4%
    Appendix A experiments show 4% high-noise ratio works best before the beta distribution is introduced; this motivated the beta schedule.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Consistency models and the probability-flow ODE theory of Song et al. [16] are correct.
    The training objective in Equations (5)-(7) and the boundary parameterization in Equation (2) are taken from [16] without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Karras noise schedule with rho=7, sigma_min=0.002, and sigma_max=80 defines the discretization.
    Used in Equation (4) and inherited from [6].
  • domain assumption Log-normal noise distribution parameters (Pmean=-1.1, Pstd=2.0) and pseudo-Huber loss from iCT [15] are accepted as given.
    The baseline iCT recipe is adopted wholesale; the paper only changes the distribution and curriculum.
  • ad hoc to paper Hyperparameters tuned on CIFAR10 and LDCT generalize to the reported datasets.
    Section 3.2 states parameters were empirically determined using CIFAR10; Section 4.3 sets alpha=0.5 after experiments. No held-out tuning protocol is described.
  • ad hoc to paper High noise levels up to 4% of a mini-batch improve denoising, and the beta distribution captures this effect.
    Appendix A shows manual high-noise injection experiments at 100K training steps; the paper asserts the beta distribution generalizes that finding.
invented entities (1)
  • Weighted Attention Gate (WAG)
    purpose: Extracts and scales common spatial features between the LDCT condition and skip connections so the condition does not dominate reconstruction.
    Introduced in Section 3.1; performance evidence is internal to the paper's experiments, with no external verification or theoretical guarantee.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Low Dose Computed Tomography Images Using Consistency Training Techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RGX5VUY3

@misc{pith2026241112181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Low Dose Computed Tomography Images Using Consistency Training Techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RGX5VUY3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12181}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models have significant impact on wide range of generative tasks, especially on image inpainting and restoration. Although the improvements on aiming for decreasing number of function evaluations (NFE), the iterative results are still computationally expensive. Consistency models are as a new family of generative models, enable single-step sampling of high quality data without the need for adversarial training. In this paper, we introduce the beta noise distribution, which provides flexibility in adjusting noise levels. This is combined with a sinusoidal curriculum that enhances the learning of the trajectory between the noise distribution and the posterior distribution of interest, allowing High Noise Improved Consistency Training (HN-iCT) to be trained in a supervised fashion. Additionally, High Noise Improved Consistency Training with Image Condition (HN-iCT-CN) architecture is introduced, enables to take Low Dose images as a condition for extracting significant features by Weighted Attention Gates (WAG).Our results indicate that unconditional image generation using HN-iCT significantly outperforms basic CT and iCT training techniques with NFE=1 on the CIFAR10 and CelebA datasets. Moreover, our image-conditioned model demonstrates exceptional performance in enhancing low-dose (LD) CT scans.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12181 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The illustration of image conditioned consistency model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The illustration of WAG unit used in proposed architecture. Weight( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Representation of denoised slice samples from the low-dose CT validation set. The first column features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Diffusion models in vision: A survey

    Florinel-Alin Croitoru, Vlad Hondru, Radu Tudor Ionescu, and Mubarak Shah. Diffusion models in vision: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 45(9):10850–10869, September 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis, 2021

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

    2021

  3. [3]

    Block matching 3d random noise filtering for absorption optical projection tomography

    P Fumene Feruglio, C Vinegoni, J Gros, A Sbarbati, and R Weissleder. Block matching 3d random noise filtering for absorption optical projection tomography. Physics in Medicine and Biology , 55(18):5401–5415, August 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Poisson flow consistency models for low-dose ct image denoising, 2024

    Dennis Hein, Adam Wang, and Ge Wang. Poisson flow consistency models for low-dose ct image denoising, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models. 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models, 2022

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    Alex Krizhevsky. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. pages 32–33, 2009

    2009

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Trzasko, David S

    Zhoubo Li, Lifeng Yu, Joshua D. Trzasko, David S. Lake, Daniel J. Blezek, Joel G. Fletcher, Cynthia H. McCollough, and Armando Manduca. Adaptive nonlocal means filtering based on local noise level for ct denoising: Adaptive nonlocal means filtering for ct denoising. Medical Ph...

    2013

  2. [10]

    Diffusion probabilistic priors for zero-shot low-dose ct image denoising, 2023

    Xuan Liu, Yaoqin Xie, Jun Cheng, Songhui Diao, Shan Tan, and Xiaokun Liang. Diffusion probabilistic priors for zero-shot low-dose ct image denoising, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Deep learning face attributes in the wild

    Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , December 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    McCollough, Adam C

    Cynthia H. McCollough, Adam C. Bartley, Rickey E. Carter, Baiyu Chen, Tammy A. Drees, Phillip Edwards, David R. Holmes, Alice E. Huang, Farhana Khan, Shuai Leng, Kyle L. McMillan, Gregory J. Michalak, Kristina M. Nunez, Lifeng Yu, and Joel G. Fletcher. Low-dose <scp>ct</scp> f...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Attention u-net: Learning where to look for the pancreas, 2018

    Ozan Oktay, Jo Schlemper, Loic Le Folgoc, Matthew Lee, Mattias Heinrich, Kazunari Misawa, Kensaku Mori, Steven McDonagh, Nils Y Hammerla, Bernhard Kainz, Ben Glocker, and Daniel Rueckert. Attention u-net: Learning where to look for the pancreas, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models, 2020

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Improved techniques for training consistency models

    Yang Song and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved techniques for training consistency models. 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Consistency models

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models. 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Learning models for object recognition from natural language descriptions

    Josiah Wang, Katja Markert, and Mark Everingham. Learning models for object recognition from natural language descriptions. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference , 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    Low-dose ct using denoising diffusion probabilistic model for 20× speedup, 2022

    Wenjun Xia, Qing Lyu, and Ge Wang. Low-dose ct using denoising diffusion probabilistic model for 20× speedup, 2022. 10 ENHANCING LOW DOSE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IMAGES USING CONSISTENCY TRAINING TECHNIQUES A PREPRINT

    2022

  12. [20]

    Pfgm++: Unlocking the potential of physics-inspired generative models, 2023

    Yilun Xu, Ziming Liu, Yonglong Tian, Shangyuan Tong, Max Tegmark, and Tommi Jaakkola. Pfgm++: Unlocking the potential of physics-inspired generative models, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Generative adversarial network in medical imaging: A review

    Xin Yi, Ekta Walia, and Paul Babyn. Generative adversarial network in medical imaging: A review. Medical Image Analysis, 58:101552, December 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Beta diffusion, 2023

    Mingyuan Zhou, Tianqi Chen, Zhendong Wang, and Huangjie Zheng. Beta diffusion, 2023. Appendices A High Noise Level Experimental Details The experiments reveals that adding minor weighted high noise levels on mini-batches increase denoising performance. As it is represented in ...

    2023

Pith tools

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