Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Comparative Analysis of Diffusion Generative Models in Computational Pathology

T0 review · 3 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 This paper establishes that DDPM, a pixel-space diffusion model, can synthesize high-quality colon polyp histopathology patches (FID 19.08 for FOV 224), and that a single 128x128-trained model can generate other patch sizes to simulate…

desk verdict Useful comparative FID/KID on a private colon polyp dataset, but the patch-size novelty is under-specified and the classification claims overreach; deserves review with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15719 v1 pith:7IIBJ4BA submitted 2024-11-24 eess.IV cs.CV

Denisha Thakkar , Vincent Quoc-Huy Trinh , Sonal Varma , Samira Ebrahimi Kahou , Hassan Rivaz , Mahdi S. Hosseini This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords diffusiongenerativemodelslatentcomputationalpathologyhistopathologyimagesynthesisfieldofviewFIDKIDsyntheticdataaugmentation
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

This paper tries to establish that diffusion generative models, especially the pixel-space DDPM, can produce high-quality synthetic histopathology patches of colonic polyps, reporting FID scores of 19.08 and 18.45 for two fields of view. It further claims that a model trained at a single 128x128 patch size can generate plausible images at other sizes, effectively simulating different fields of view without retraining. The authors argue that synthetic data can support classifiers, showing that adding generated patches to real PKGH 224 data raises a ResNet-50's accuracy from 89.95% to 90.75%. If true, synthetic generation would help address privacy and data-scarcity problems in computational pathology.

What carries the argument

The central objects are Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (DDPM), which add and remove Gaussian noise directly in pixel space, and Latent Diffusion Models (LDM), which run diffusion in a lower-dimensional latent space learned by a VQ-autoencoder. Classifier-free guidance mixes conditional and unconditional noise predictions to steer generation toward one of the five tissue classes. The paper's novel knob is prompting patch size at sampling time: with training fixed at 128x128, requesting other output sizes changes the field of view of the generated images, which is the mechanism claimed to simulate multiple FOVs from one model.

What would settle it

Run the reported comparison with fixed numbers of generated samples and per-class counts, and repeat the ResNet-50 training over multiple seeds; if the 90.75% versus 89.95% accuracy difference on PKGH 224 falls within the seed-to-seed standard deviation, or if DDPM's FID on a held-out patch set no longer beats LDM's, the central claims would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that DDPM with class-conditioning and classifier-free guidance generates colon polyp patches that score FID 19.08 on the 224 field-of-view dataset and 18.45 on the 336 dataset, outperforming the LDM baseline on both datasets and under both DDPM and DDIM sampling. The same model trained at 128x128 produces patches at other sizes, with FID worsening away from the training size (161.01 at 64x64, 41.37 at 224x224) while preserving recognizable structure at intermediate sizes. In the downstream evaluation, training on real plus generated patches improves accuracy over real-only training on PKGH 224 (90.75% vs 89.95%), though the same augmentation slightly reduces accuracy on PKGH 336 (90.76% vs 94.06%).

Load-bearing premise

The reported experimental setup can support the conclusions, meaning the number of patches per class, the number of generated images used for FID and KID, the classifier's train/test split, and repeated runs with variance are all sufficient to make the small accuracy differences meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DDPM in pixel space is the stronger baseline for this histopathology generation task, so future method comparisons can use it as the reference point.
  • A single diffusion model can synthesize patches at untrained resolutions, giving a cheap way to create multi-field-of-view datasets without retraining.
  • Because the 336 FOV dataset produced both better FID and higher real-data classifier accuracy, FOV choice should be a reported and controlled variable in pathology generation studies.
  • Standard DDPM sampling is preferable to DDIM or epsilon scaling in this setting, since both alternatives produced higher FID and KID scores.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Implicit in the patch-size results is that the trained model encodes multi-scale tissue structure; this could be tested by comparing generated patches across sizes against real patches of the corresponding magnifications.
  • The paper's accuracy differences are small and lack variance reporting, so the augmentation benefit on PKGH 224 may not survive a significance test; a repeated-seed experiment would settle it.
  • If synthetic patches can fool FID but not preserve subtype-specific diagnostic cues, downstream tasks like polyp classification may need their own quality metrics beyond FID and KID.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a comparative empirical study of diffusion generative models (DDPM and LDM) for synthesizing histopathology image patches from a colon polyp dataset (KGH/PKGH). The authors report FID and KID scores across sampling methods (DDPM, DDIM, Epsilon Scaling) on two fields of view (224 and 336), propose a 'patch size prompting' experiment in which a 128x128-trained model generates images at other spatial sizes to simulate different FOVs, and evaluate ResNet-50 classification accuracy on real, generated, and augmented training sets. The main claims are that DDPM outperforms LDM on these data, that patch-size prompting can simulate varying FOVs, and that synthetic data can improve classifier accuracy when combined with real data.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would provide a useful baseline comparison of diffusion models in computational pathology and an interesting observation about generating histopathology patches at multiple spatial sizes from a single trained model. The paper's empirical framing is appropriate, and the FID/KID plus classification evaluation is a standard toolkit. However, the significance is currently limited by three unresolved issues: the patch-size generation mechanism is not specified in a way that makes the result reproducible or distinguishable from trivial resizing; all generative metrics are point estimates with no sample-size information or uncertainty quantification; and the classification results are internally inconsistent with the paper's stated conclusion that synthetic data increases accuracy. The code is promised in the GitHub repository, which is a positive step, but the manuscript itself does not provide enough detail to assess the central novelty.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Tables 3 and 4] The 'patch size prompting' experiment is the paper's principal novelty, but the manuscript never describes the mechanism by which a model trained at 128x128 generates images at 64x64, 96x96, 160x160, 192x192, or 224x224. Section 3.2 describes the U-Net as having timestep and class embeddings only, with no size embedding or text conditioning. Table 4's column label 'Patch reshaped' suggests that the generated images may simply be resized to the target patch size. If the model is fully convolutional and the noise tensor is initialized at different shapes, that is standard spatial extrapolation rather than 'prompting patch size'; if the 128x128 output is resized, then Table 4 measures interpolation artifacts rather than FOV simulation. The abstract and Section 1 claim that 'adjustment of image size during data generation can simulate varying fields of view,' but without a precise description of the generation procedure or a baseline of simply resizing real/generated 128x128 images, this claim is not reproducible from the manuscript.
  2. [§4.3, Table 5, Conclusion] FID and KID scores are reported as single point estimates with no confidence intervals, no standard deviations, and no statement of the number of generated images used for evaluation. The paper also does not state the number of real patches per class or per dataset. Without this information, the observed differences (e.g., FID 19.08 for PKGH 224 vs. 18.45 for PKGH 336, or the ordering of DDPM vs. LDM) cannot be distinguished from sampling noise. The authors should report the number of real and generated samples used in each metric computation, and ideally provide bootstrapped confidence intervals or results over multiple generation runs. This is load-bearing because Table 3 is the main evidence for the DDPM-over-LDM comparison and Table 4 is the main evidence for the patch-size claim.
  3. The classification results are internally inconsistent with the paper's conclusion that synthetic data 'increasing accuracy' and that 'larger FOV values yielded better FID scores and higher classification accuracy.' For PKGH 224, adding generated data to real data improves accuracy from 89.95% to 90.75%, but for PKGH 336, the same augmentation decreases accuracy from 94.06% to 90.76%. The abstract and contributions claim that synthetic data can 'boost' classifier performance, yet the PKGH 336 result directly contradicts this. Moreover, the accuracy differences (e.g., 0.8 points on PKGH 224) are not accompanied by confidence intervals, repeated runs, or a significance test, so the authors' conclusion that synthetic data improves classifiers is not statistically grounded. The paper should hedge its claims, analyze why augmentation hurts on PKGH 336, and report variance across training runs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] The sentence 'In DDIM, setting η = 0 eliminates noise, making it equivalent to DDPM' is inaccurate: η = 0 makes DDIM fully deterministic, which is not equivalent to DDPM's stochastic reverse process. This should be corrected to state that η = 0 gives deterministic DDIM sampling.
  2. [§4.2, Figure 7] The patch extraction procedure is under-specified: the paper says patches were extracted at FOV 224 from 20X magnification and resized to 128x128, but it does not state the original pixel dimensions before resizing, the total number of patches per class, or the number of WSIs used. This information is essential for assessing dataset balance and the representativeness of the FID/KID scores.
  3. [§5] The caption of Figure 7 says the model generates 'histology slices at various resolutions, from 64x64 to 224x224,' but Table 4 also includes 96x96, 160x160, and 192x192; the figure caption should list all evaluated sizes or refer the reader to Table 4.
  4. The conclusion states 'DDPM and LDM showed comparable performance despite their architectural differences,' but Table 3 shows a consistent 4-6 point FID gap favoring DDPM; 'comparable' is an overstatement. Also, the conclusion's claim that 'larger FOV values yielded better FID scores' holds only between 224 and 336 in Table 3, not across the extended patch-size sweep in Table 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the empirical benchmark comparisons are self-contained, and the patch-size/FOV claim is under-specified but not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claims (DDPM vs LDM FID/KID scores and ResNet-50 accuracy on real, generated, and augmented data) are evaluated against external, pre-specified metrics computed on real data; no parameter is fitted to the FID or accuracy values being 'predicted,' so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction or self-definitional reduction. The only overlapping-author citation ([9], a survey) supports a general statement about data heterogeneity and is not load-bearing for any result. The patch-size/FOV experiment is a genuine validity concern: the manuscript never specifies how a U-Net described with only timestep and class embeddings is conditioned on 'Patch Size,' and Table 4's column 'Patch reshaped' raises the possibility that varying patch size was implemented by resizing rather than by generation. However, that is an omitted-mechanism/reproducibility problem about what was measured, not a demonstration that a claimed derivation is equivalent to its inputs by construction; the reported FID values are empirical outputs, not consequences of the paper's own equations. Accordingly, the paper is not circular under the criteria above, and the appropriate finding is a low score with no circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on undisclosed training hyperparameters and evaluation sample counts; the paper uses standard diffusion training with no new fitted constants. The named free parameter is the Epsilon Scaling coefficient, and the two domain assumptions above are load-bearing.

free parameters (1)
  • Epsilon scaling coefficient s = 1.014
    Used for the Epsilon Scaling sampling variant (Table 3); the value is stated but no ablation or justification is given for choosing 1.014.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Inception-based FID and KID are meaningful quality measures for histopathology images even though the embeddings were trained on ImageNet.
    Section 3.3 selects FID and KID as primary metrics, explicitly rejecting IS for its ImageNet bias, but does not address the same concern for FID and KID.
  • domain assumption A diffusion U-Net trained at 128x128 can generate at unseen patch sizes and the results represent tissue at corresponding fields of view.
    Section 4.2 generates at 64 to 224 pixels while training at 128, assuming resolution generalization rather than artifacts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparative Analysis of Diffusion Generative Models in Computational Pathology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IIBJ4BA

@misc{pith2026241115719,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparative Analysis of Diffusion Generative Models in Computational Pathology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IIBJ4BA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15719}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion Generative Models (DGM) have rapidly surfaced as emerging topics in the field of computer vision, garnering significant interest across a wide array of deep learning applications. Despite their high computational demand, these models are extensively utilized for their superior sample quality and robust mode coverage. While research in diffusion generative models is advancing, exploration within the domain of computational pathology and its large-scale datasets has been comparatively gradual. Bridging the gap between the high-quality generation capabilities of Diffusion Generative Models and the intricate nature of pathology data, this paper presents an in-depth comparative analysis of diffusion methods applied to a pathology dataset. Our analysis extends to datasets with varying Fields of View (FOV), revealing that DGMs are highly effective in producing high-quality synthetic data. An ablative study is also conducted, followed by a detailed discussion on the impact of various methods on the synthesized histopathology images. One striking observation from our experiments is how the adjustment of image size during data generation can simulate varying fields of view. These findings underscore the potential of DGMs to enhance the quality and diversity of synthetic pathology data, especially when used with real data, ultimately increasing accuracy of deep learning models in histopathology. Code is available from https://github.com/AtlasAnalyticsLab/Diffusion4Path

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15719 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The process of selecting and magnifying different regions from a histopathology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diffusion Generative Models framework used in the pathology dataset: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Samples from Cancer Tissue and Normal WSI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real vs Generated Images from the FOV 224 (DDPM and LDM): The top row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Real vs Generated Images from the FOV 336 (DDPM and LDM): The top row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of generated pathology images using DDPM (top row) and Epsilon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: This series of images demonstrates the capability of our pre-trained model to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Patches generated for different patch size resembling different cell structure for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Patches generated for Patch size(64x64) which has the highest FID score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Digital pathology: advantages, limitations and emerging perspectives

    Stephan W Jahn, Markus Plass, and Farid Moinfar. Digital pathology: advantages, limitations and emerging perspectives. Journal of clinical medicine, 9(11):3697, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Dig- ital pathology and artificial intelligence in translational medicine and clinical practice

    Vipul Baxi, Robin Edwards, Michael Montalto, and Saurabh Saha. Dig- ital pathology and artificial intelligence in translational medicine and clinical practice. Modern Pathology, 35(1):23–32, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Deep learning for digital pathology image analysis: A comprehensive tutorial with selected use cases

    Andrew Janowczyk and Anant Madabhushi. Deep learning for digital pathology image analysis: A comprehensive tutorial with selected use cases. Journal of pathology informatics , 7(1):29, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Deep learning in histopathology: the path to the clinic

    Jeroen Van der Laak, Geert Litjens, and Francesco Ciompi. Deep learning in histopathology: the path to the clinic. Nature medicine , 27(5):775–784, 2021. 21

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Deep learning in cancer pathology: a new generation of clinical biomarkers

    Amelie Echle, Niklas Timon Rindtorff, Titus Josef Brinker, Tom Luedde, Alexander Thomas Pearson, and Jakob Nikolas Kather. Deep learning in cancer pathology: a new generation of clinical biomarkers. British journal of cancer , 124(4):686–696, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    How much data is needed to train a medical image deep learning system to achieve necessary high accuracy? arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06348 , 2015

    Junghwan Cho, Kyewook Lee, Ellie Shin, Garry Choy, and Synho Do. How much data is needed to train a medical image deep learning system to achieve necessary high accuracy? arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06348 , 2015

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Privacy in the age of medical big data

    W Nicholson Price and I Glenn Cohen. Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nature medicine, 25(1):37–43, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Between generating noise and generating images: Noise in the correct frequency improves the quality of synthetic histopathology images for digital pathology

    Nati Daniel, Eliel Aknin, Ariel Larey, Yoni Peretz, Guy Sela, Yael Fisher, and Yonatan Savir. Between generating noise and generating images: Noise in the correct frequency improves the quality of synthetic histopathology images for digital pathology. In 2023 45th Annual In- ternational Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMB...

    work page 2023

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Computational pathology: a sur- vey review and the way forward

    Mahdi S Hosseini, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Vincent Quoc-Huy Trinh, Lyndon Chan, Danial Hasan, Xingwen Li, Stephen Yang, Taehyo Kim, Haochen Zhang, Theodore Wu, et al. Computational pathology: a sur- vey review and the way forward. Journal of Pathology Informatics, page 100357, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Evaluation of the use of single-and multi- magnification convolutional neural networks for the determination and quantitation of lesions in nonclinical pathology studies

    Jogile Kuklyte, Jenny Fitzgerald, Sophie Nelissen, Haolin Wei, Aoife Whelan, Adam Power, Ajaz Ahmad, Martyna Miarka, Mark Gregson, Michael Maxwell, et al. Evaluation of the use of single-and multi- magnification convolutional neural networks for the determination and quantitat...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Synthetic data in machine learning for medicine and healthcare

    Richard J Chen, Ming Y Lu, Tiffany Y Chen, Drew FK Williamson, and Faisal Mahmood. Synthetic data in machine learning for medicine and healthcare. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 5(6):493–497, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Gen- erative adversarial networks

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Gen- erative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM , 63(11):139– 144, 2020. 22

    2020

  5. [13]

    A disentangled generative model for disease decomposition in chest x-rays via normal image synthesis

    Youbao Tang, Yuxing Tang, Yingying Zhu, Jing Xiao, and Ronald M Summers. A disentangled generative model for disease decomposition in chest x-rays via normal image synthesis. Medical Image Analysis , 67:101839, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Hi- net: hybrid-fusion network for multi-modal mr image synthesis

    Tao Zhou, Huazhu Fu, Geng Chen, Jianbing Shen, and Ling Shao. Hi- net: hybrid-fusion network for multi-modal mr image synthesis. IEEE transactions on medical imaging , 39(9):2772–2781, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Pathologygan: Learning deep representations of cancer tissue

    Adalberto Claudio Quiros, Roderick Murray-Smith, and Ke Yuan. Pathologygan: Learning deep representations of cancer tissue. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02644, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Deep semi supervised generative learning for automated tumor proportion scoring on nsclc tissue needle biopsies

    Ansh Kapil, Armin Meier, Aleksandra Zuraw, Keith E Steele, Marlon C Rebelatto, G¨ unter Schmidt, and Nicolas Brieu. Deep semi supervised generative learning for automated tumor proportion scoring on nsclc tissue needle biopsies. Scientific reports, 8(1):17343, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Deepfake histologic images for enhancing digital pathology

    Kianoush Falahkheirkhah, Saumya Tiwari, Kevin Yeh, Sounak Gupta, Loren Herrera-Hernandez, Michael R McCarthy, Rafael E Jimenez, John C Cheville, and Rohit Bhargava. Deepfake histologic images for enhancing digital pathology. Laboratory Investigation, 103(1):100006, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:8780–8794, 2021. 23

    2021

  14. [22]

    Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Alexander Quinn Nichol and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8162–8171. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Improved techniques for training score- based generative models

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Improved techniques for training score- based generative models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:12438–12448, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Srdiff: Single image super-resolution with diffusion probabilistic models

    Haoying Li, Yifan Yang, Meng Chang, Shiqi Chen, Huajun Feng, Zhihai Xu, Qi Li, and Yueting Chen. Srdiff: Single image super-resolution with diffusion probabilistic models. Neurocomputing, 479:47–59, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Diffmix: Diffusion model-based data synthesis for nuclei segmentation and classification in imbalanced pathology image datasets

    Hyun-Jic Oh and Won-Ki Jeong. Diffmix: Diffusion model-based data synthesis for nuclei segmentation and classification in imbalanced pathology image datasets. In International Conference on Medical Im- age Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 337–345. Springer, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Card: Classifica- tion and regression diffusion models

    Xizewen Han, Huangjie Zheng, and Mingyuan Zhou. Card: Classifica- tion and regression diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:18100–18115, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Pathldm: Text conditioned la- tent diffusion model for histopathology

    Srikar Yellapragada, Alexandros Graikos, Prateek Prasanna, Tahsin Kurc, Joel Saltz, and Dimitris Samaras. Pathldm: Text conditioned la- tent diffusion model for histopathology. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 5182– 5191, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    A morphology focused diffusion probabilistic model for synthesis of histopathology images

    Puria Azadi Moghadam, Sanne Van Dalen, Karina C Martin, Jochen Lennerz, Stephen Yip, Hossein Farahani, and Ali Bashashati. A morphology focused diffusion probabilistic model for synthesis of histopathology images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Con- ference on Applicati...

    2000

  21. [29]

    Learned representation-guided diffusion models for large-image generation

    Alexandros Graikos, Srikar Yellapragada, Minh-Quan Le, Saarthak Kapse, Prateek Prasanna, Joel Saltz, and Dimitris Samaras. Learned representation-guided diffusion models for large-image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Reco...

    2024

  22. [30]

    A boosted classifier for integrating multiple fields of view: Breast can- cer grading in histopathology

    Ajay Basavanhally, Shridar Ganesan, Natalie Shih, Carolyn Mies, Michael Feldman, John Tomaszewski, and Anant Madabhushi. A boosted classifier for integrating multiple fields of view: Breast can- cer grading in histopathology. In 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical ...

    2011

  23. [31]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermody- namics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermody- namics. In International conference on machine learning , pages 2256–

  24. [32]

    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

    2022

  25. [33]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Elucidating the exposure bias in diffusion models

    Mang Ning, Mingxiao Li, Jianlin Su, Albert Ali Salah, and Itir Onal Ertugrul. Elucidating the exposure bias in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15321, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Neural discrete representation learning

    Aaron Van Den Oord, Oriol Vinyals, et al. Neural discrete representation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Improved techniques for training gans

    Tim Salimans, Ian Goodfellow, Wojciech Zaremba, Vicki Cheung, Alec Radford, and Xi Chen. Improved techniques for training gans. Advances in neural information processing systems , 29, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium

    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 informa- tion processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Going deeper with convolutions

    Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1–9, 2015. 25

    2015

  31. [39]

    Demystifying mmd gans

    Miko laj Bi´ nkowski, Danica J Sutherland, Michael Arbel, and Arthur Gretton. Demystifying mmd gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01401 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Deep resid- ual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep resid- ual learning for image recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Generating synthetic data in digital pathology through diffusion models: a multi- faceted approach to evaluation

    Matteo Pozzi, Shahryar Noei, Erich Robbi, Luca Cima, Monica Moroni, Enrico Munari, Evelin Torresani, and Giuseppe Jurman. Generating synthetic data in digital pathology through diffusion models: a multi- faceted approach to evaluation. medRxiv, pages 2023–11, 2023. 26

    2023

Pith tools

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