Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Classifier-Free Guidance inside the Attraction Basin May Cause Memorization

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Applying CFG only after the diffusion trajectory leaves a memorization attraction basin avoids verbatim training-image reproduction, and the switch point is marked by a steep drop in conditional-noise magnitude.

desk verdict A genuinely new inference-time angle on diffusion memorization, with an honest but under-validated transition-point detector and some in-sample evaluation choices. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16738 v2 pith:RQDHHYYP submitted 2024-11-23 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Anubhav Jain , Yuya Kobayashi , Takashi Shibuya , Yuhta Takida , Nasir Memon , Julian Togelius , Yuki Mitsufuji This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords diffusionmodelsmemorizationclassifier-freeguidanceattractionbasintransitionpointoppositetext-to-imagegenerationtrainingdataextraction
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 argues that memorization in text-to-image diffusion models is not merely a data problem: it is a dynamical one. During denoising with classifier-free guidance (CFG), a memorized training image acts as an attractor, and any trajectory that applies CFG while inside its attraction basin is steered toward that exact reproduction. The authors show that each memorized prompt has a transition point, visible as a sharp fall in the L2 magnitude of the conditional guidance term, after which CFG no longer reproduces the training image. Their mitigation is to run the early part of denoising with zero CFG, or with negative opposite guidance, and switch to standard CFG only after the transition point. Across four memorization scenarios, this simple switch reduces similarity to training data while keeping image quality and text alignment, with no retraining and no prompt edits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the attraction basin: the set of points (x, t) in the denoising state space from which CFG inference converges, in perceptual distance, to a memorized training image $x_a$ at time zero. The argument is carried by the transition point, the boundary time step at which the zero-CFG trajectory leaves the basin; it is detected by a steep fall in $d_t = \|\epsilon_\theta(x_t, e_p) - \epsilon_\theta(x_t, e_\emptyset)\|_2^2$, the squared L2 norm of the conditional guidance term. Opposite guidance is the companion mechanism: during early denoising it replaces positive CFG with its negative form, $\epsilon_\theta(x_t, e_\emptyset) - s(\epsilon_\theta(x_t, e_p) - \epsilon_\theta(x_t, e_\emptyset))$, so the trajectory exits the basin sooner before standard CFG is applied.

What would settle it

Find a memorized prompt where the conditional-guidance magnitude $\|\epsilon_\theta(x_t, e_p) - \epsilon_\theta(x_t, e_\emptyset)\|_2$ collapses at some $t^*$, but starting CFG at $t^*$ or a few steps later still yields an image with SSCD similarity above 0.5 to a training image; one such counterexample, reproduced across initializations or models, would invalidate the dynamic-transition-point rule as a general mitigation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that applying CFG before the transition point tends to force the trajectory into an attraction basin and produce a memorized sample, whereas applying CFG after the transition point does not. The transition point coincides with a steep fall in $\|\epsilon_\theta(x_t, e_p) - \epsilon_\theta(x_t, e_\emptyset)\|_2$, the squared L2 norm of the difference between text-conditioned and unconditional noise predictions; for memorized samples this magnitude stays high during early denoising and collapses exactly when the zero-CFG trajectory exits the basin. The paper proposes detecting this collapse online as the first local minimum of that norm (Algorithm 1) and starting CFG from that step. In models where the transition is universal, a static cutoff (t = 500 for SDv2.1 fine-tuned on LAION-10k) suffices; in pre-trained SDv1.4 the transition is dynamic per prompt and initialization, with the same prompt showing t = 779 versus t = 759 under different noise. The same attraction-basin reasoning motivates opposite guidance, which subtracts the conditional guidance term to push the trajectory out of the basin earlier before switching to positive CFG.

Load-bearing premise

The method's success rests on the assumption that the first local minimum of the squared L2 distance between the conditional and unconditional noise predictions reliably marks the time step after which applying CFG will not cause memorization; this correspondence is shown on a handful of examples, and the static transition points are selected after inspecting the evaluation data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Memorization can be mitigated at inference time without retraining, without modifying weights, and without editing the prompt, which extends the approach to class-conditional and other non-text conditioning.
  • Tracking the magnitude of the conditional guidance term during sampling gives a single signal for both detecting memorization and deciding when to start applying CFG.
  • Combining the dynamic transition point with opposite guidance reduces similarity to training data while maintaining competitive FID and CLIP scores in all four studied scenarios.
  • Transition-point avoidance generalizes across memorization causes (data duplication, small-dataset fine-tuning, and trigger-token memorization in pre-trained models), whereas trigger-token-based baselines fail outside their original scenario.
  • The transition-point rule yields a concrete scheduling principle for CFG: keep guidance off until the conditional noise norm collapses, then apply it, giving a principled alternative to hand-designed CFG weight schedulers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The first-local-minimum heuristic could be tested against an analytic criterion based on the Jacobian of the score function; if the norm collapse marks a separatrix crossing in the denoising ODE, the transition point might be predicted per prompt without sampling.
  • The same basin picture suggests that CFG schedulers which are zero early and positive late form a general anti-memorization family, and existing fidelity-motivated schedulers could be reinterpreted as moving the transition point earlier.
  • Opposite guidance on a non-memorized prompt could plausibly push the trajectory toward low-quality or adversarial regions; the transition-point guard is what makes it safe, and that safety deserves separate stress-testing.
  • If the correlation between norm collapse and the end of memorization holds broadly, a one-pass adaptive sampler could start with zero CFG and switch on guidance mid-trajectory, avoiding the cost of a separate memorization detection run.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that memorization in text-conditioned diffusion models arises because classifier-free guidance (CFG), when applied inside an "attraction basin" early in denoising, steers trajectories toward training images. It proposes that there is a "transition point" in the denoising process after which CFG no longer causes memorization, and introduces mitigation strategies: applying zero guidance until a static or dynamic transition point, and a new "opposite guidance" variant that pushes trajectories out of the basin sooner. The method is evaluated in four memorization scenarios using SSCD similarity, CLIP score, and FID, and the authors report reductions in similarity with training images at modest computational overhead.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would be a useful inference-time memorization mitigation requiring no retraining, no prompt modification, and no access to training data, which would distinguish it from several prior approaches. The paper also ships public code and includes a broad set of scenarios, and the qualitative phenomenon—that delaying CFG onset changes whether a generated sample is memorized—is plausible and visually striking. However, the load-bearing validation is currently weak: the transition-point rule is selected and evaluated on the same data, the dynamic detector is validated only on a few curves, the reported residual similarities remain above the paper's own memorization threshold in two scenarios, and no matched-control ablation rules out a simple dose-response effect of reduced early guidance.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 6.1 and 6.2, Figures 3 and 10, Tables 1 and 2] The static transition points t=500 (Scenario 1) and t=700/600 (Scenario 2) are selected after inspecting the evaluation data, and the reported similarity/FID improvements are therefore in-sample performance rather than predictive validation. Because the existence of a universal static transition point is a central claim, the authors need a selection procedure that does not use the evaluation prompts or a held-out split, and they should report the sensitivity of the results to the chosen time step around the selected value.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 5, and Section 4, Figure 2] The dynamic transition-point detector triggers on the first strict local minimum of d_t = ||eps_theta(x_t, ep) - eps_theta(x_t, e_empty)||_2^2, but the phenomenon described in Section 4 and shown in Figure 2 is a steep fall followed by a plateau; on such a curve the first strict local minimum can occur much later than the visually identified transition, or may not occur at all. The paper provides no quantitative validation that the detected switch time coincides with the memorization boundary, e.g., by comparing detected t* against a per-prompt sweep of CFG start times, and it reports no error bars or detection success rates over prompts and initializations.
  3. [Tables 3 and 4; Section 2.2] The paper states that SSCD scores above 0.5 can suggest memorization, but after mitigation the 95th-percentile similarities in Scenario 3 are 0.5885 (DTP) and 0.6915 (OG+DTP), and in Scenario 4 they are 0.8722 and 0.8680, all above that threshold. The repeated characterization of these outputs as "non-memorized" is therefore not supported by the paper's own metric; the authors should report per-prompt rates of samples below the threshold, quantify the residual risk, and discuss why the 95th-percentile values remain so high.
  4. [Section 5 and Tables 1-4] No control with matched total guidance or randomized switch time is reported. A method that simply applies zero CFG for the first portion of the denoising process and standard CFG afterward would likely produce a similar dose-response reduction in training-set similarity, regardless of whether the switch time marks a special attraction-basin boundary. The authors should add ablations using random switch times matched to the distribution of detected transition points, and compare against existing CFG-weight schedulers (including Refs. [13] and [26]), to show that the specific transition point rather than reduced early guidance is responsible for the improvement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Limitations paragraph] The limitations paragraph says memorization must be detected before applying the method, but the threshold on the magnitude of conditional guidance is not specified, and the two proposed detection modes (run twice vs. threshold at t=0) are not evaluated; please provide concrete detection thresholds and accuracy numbers.
  2. [Figure 2 and Algorithm 1] Figure 2 labels the vertical axis "L2 Norm" while Algorithm 1 uses the squared L2 norm d_t = ||...||_2^2; please make the definition consistent and state which quantity is plotted.
  3. [Definition 3] The definition of a transition point appears to have a typo in the second probability condition, which should presumably assert that the trajectory at (x_tau, tau) is unlikely to land in the perceptual ball; please correct the inequality and the surrounding prose.
  4. [Table 3] The comparison with Wen et al. at l_target=1 shows a lower similarity (0.6038) than the proposed DTP (0.5885) at substantially better CLIP score only for Wen et al.; the discussion should acknowledge that similarity, alignment, and FID all trade off and that no method dominates on every metric.
  5. [Section 6.1, Table 1] The FID for 'Ours (STP)' (19.85) is worse than no mitigation (16.84) and the FID for 'Ours (OG + STP)' (15.67) is best; this trade-off deserves explicit discussion because the abstract and conclusion emphasize high image quality across all scenarios.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transition-point rule is an empirical heuristic, and the paper's core observations do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical regularity: applying classifier-free guidance before a certain denoising step tends to reproduce memorized training images, while applying it after that step does not, and this boundary correlates with a steep drop in the magnitude of the conditional noise prediction. This is not a formal derivation from first principles, and no equation in the paper makes the claimed output equivalent to an input by construction. The static transition points (e.g., t=500 in Scenario 1, t=700/600 in Scenario 2) are selected by inspecting the average guidance-magnitude curves, which is an in-sample validation weakness rather than a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction; the magnitude signal is an independent observable from the memorization outcome. The dynamic transition-point detector in Algorithm 1 is a fixed, parameter-free rule (first local minimum of the squared L2 norm of the guidance difference), and the paper's success is an empirical demonstration, not a statistical consequence of fitting that rule to the reported evaluation metric. The limitations paragraph explicitly acknowledges that the method requires pre-detection of memorization, which is an honest scope condition. Residual similarity scores above the 0.5 threshold in Tables 3 and 4 raise performance concerns, but they concern efficacy, not circularity. There is also no load-bearing self-citation: the paper builds on external prior work (Wen et al., Somepalli et al., Ren et al.) and does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors to rule out alternatives. Therefore, while the paper would benefit from held-out validation of the transition-point rule, matched-guidance baselines, and randomized switch-time comparisons, none of these omissions make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a handful of empirical regularities: the conditional guidance magnitude drops at the transition point, and the first local minimum of that magnitude is a reliable detector. Static transition points are fitted per scenario. No new physical entities are introduced; the attraction basin and transition point are conceptual labels for observed behavior.

free parameters (3)
  • Static transition point t=500 (Scenario 1) = 500
    Chosen by observing the mean conditional vs unconditional noise prediction curves on the LAION-10k fine-tuned model and applied to all test prompts in that scenario. No error analysis or held-out validation.
  • Static transition point t=700 and t=600 (Scenario 2) = 700, 600
    Manually selected to show reduced similarity; both values are reported, indicating tuning to the dataset rather than an a priori prediction.
  • Guidance weight λ = 7.5 (implied)
    Standard CFG scale used in Stable Diffusion; not central to the method but affects the quantitative results.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard diffusion model reverse process and CFG formulation (Eq. 3 and 4).
    Invoked in Section 3 without proof; standard in the field.
  • domain assumption The L2 norm of the conditional guidance difference is a meaningful measure of the steering force toward the attractor.
    Assumed in Section 4 when analyzing the attraction basin; not derived from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper The first local minimum of this L2 norm identifies the transition point.
    Heuristic rule in Algorithm 1; validated only on a few visual examples, not proven.
  • domain assumption SSCD similarity with threshold 0.5 indicates memorization.
    Borrowed from prior work [23,24]; used to define memorized outputs.
  • domain assumption The DPM solver with 50 inference steps adequately approximates the reverse diffusion process.
    Standard practice, but the transition point timing may depend on the solver and step count.
invented entities (2)
  • Attraction basin
    purpose: Explains why CFG applied early steers trajectories to memorized outputs.
    Defined via the denoiser φ and a perceptual ball; it is a post hoc characterization of observed trajectories rather than a separately measurable entity with falsifiable predictions outside the paper.
  • Transition point
    purpose: Marks the time step after which CFG yields non-memorized output.
    Operationally defined by the output behavior, but the paper's detector relies on a correlated heuristic (first local minimum) rather than an independent measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classifier-Free Guidance inside the Attraction Basin May Cause Memorization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQDHHYYP

@misc{pith2026241116738,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classifier-Free Guidance inside the Attraction Basin May Cause Memorization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQDHHYYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16738}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models are prone to exactly reproduce images from the training data. This exact reproduction of the training data is concerning as it can lead to copyright infringement and/or leakage of privacy-sensitive information. In this paper, we present a novel perspective on the memorization phenomenon and propose a simple yet effective approach to mitigate it. We argue that memorization occurs because of an attraction basin in the denoising process which steers the diffusion trajectory towards a memorized image. However, this can be mitigated by guiding the diffusion trajectory away from the attraction basin by not applying classifier-free guidance until an ideal transition point occurs from which classifier-free guidance is applied. This leads to the generation of non-memorized images that are high in image quality and well-aligned with the conditioning mechanism. To further improve on this, we present a new guidance technique, opposite guidance, that escapes the attraction basin sooner in the denoising process. We demonstrate the existence of attraction basins in various scenarios in which memorization occurs, and we show that our proposed approach successfully mitigates memorization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16738 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The diffusion trajectory contains an attraction basin (red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plots showing magnitude of ϵθ(xt, ep) − ϵθ(xt, e∅) when denoising without classifier-free guidance (CFG) at each time step. The figures show the generated image if you start applying CFG at that time step. We get non-memorized output if we apply CFG after the ideal transition point τ ∗ which coincides with the fall in the conditional noise prediction. This value is dependent on both the prompt and the initialization… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. In some models, transition points can occur at a different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Applying CFG before the static transition point (T=500) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnitude of ϵθ(xt, ep) − ϵθ(xt, e∅) when denoising (a) without CFG and (b) with opposite guidance. Transition point occurs sooner with opposite guidance. Algorithm 1 Reverse Diffusion with Dynamic Transition Point Method and Opposite Guidance Require: xT ∼ N (0,Id), λ…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative results comparing the proposed approach with the baselines in Scenario 1. Ren et al. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative results comparing the proposed approach with the baselines in Scenario 3. Prompts used to generate these figures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: When you apply CFG from the beginning, the magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mean conditional and unconditional noise predictions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative results comparing the proposed approach with the baselines in Scenario 4. Prompts - (a) """Listen to The Dead [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Plots depicting the trends in the L2 norms of the text-conditioned noise predictions, unconditional noise predictions, and their difference when applying zero CFG during the denoising steps. We see universal transition points appear when SDv2.1 is finetuned on larger …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Examples show the transition of images from memorized to non-memorized if we apply CFG starting from an ideal transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Qualitative results comparing the proposed approach with the baselines in Scenario 1. The following prompts have been used to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Qualitative results comparing the proposed approach with the baselines in Scenario 3. The following prompts have been used (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Qualitative results comparing the proposed approach with the baselines in Scenario 4. The prompts used for generating these [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Qualitative results on Scenario 2 showing the closest match of the generated sample (Column 1) with real samples (Columns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Applying guidance in a limited interval improves sample and distribution quality in diffusion models

    Tuomas Kynkäänniemi, Miika Aittala, Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Timo Aila, and Jaakko Lehtinen. Applying guidance in a limited interval improves sample and distribution quality in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07724, 2024. 1

    arXiv 2024

  2. [26]

    Analysis of classifier-free guidance weight schedulers

    Xi Wang, Nicolas Dufour, Nefeli Andreou, Marie-Paule Cani, Victoria Fernández Abrevaya, David Picard, and Vicky Kalo- geiton. Analysis of classifier-free guidance weight schedulers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13040, 2024. 1

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    In search of dispersed memories: Gen- erative diffusion models are associative memory networks

    Luca Ambrogioni. In search of dispersed memories: Gen- erative diffusion models are associative memory networks. Entropy, 26(5):381, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Attractors in dynamical systems

    Joseph Auslander, Nam P Bhatia, and Peter Seibert. Attractors in dynamical systems. Technical report, 1964. 4

    work page 1964

  5. [3]

    Understanding the impact of negative prompts: When and how do they take effect? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02965, 2024

    Yuanhao Ban, Ruochen Wang, Tianyi Zhou, Minhao Cheng, Boqing Gong, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. Understanding the impact of negative prompts: When and how do they take effect? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02965, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    Extracting training data from diffusion models

    Nicolas Carlini, Jamie Hayes, Milad Nasr, Matthew Jagielski, Vikash Sehwag, Florian Tramer, Borja Balle, Daphne Ippolito, and Eric Wallace. Extracting training data from diffusion models. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 5253–5270, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 6

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Muse: Text-to- image generation via masked generative transformers

    Huiwen Chang, Han Zhang, Jarred Barber, AJ Maschinot, Jose Lezama, Lu Jiang, Ming-Hsuan Yang, Kevin Murphy, William T Freeman, Michael Rubinstein, et al. Muse: Text-to- image generation via masked generative transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00704, 2023. 1

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    Memorized images in diffusion models share a subspace that can be located and deleted.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18566, 2024

    Ruchika Chavhan, Ondrej Bohdal, Yongshuo Zong, Da Li, and Timothy Hospedales. Memorized images in diffusion models share a subspace that can be located and deleted.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18566, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [7]

    Towards memorization-free diffusion models

    Chen Chen, Daochang Liu, and Chang Xu. Towards memorization-free diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8425–8434, 2024. 3

    2024

  2. [8]

    Consistent diffusion meets tweedie: Training ex- act ambient diffusion models with noisy data

    Giannis Daras, Alexandros G Dimakis, and Constantinos Daskalakis. Consistent diffusion meets tweedie: Training ex- act ambient diffusion models with noisy data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10177, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  3. [9]

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

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bern- hard 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. 6

    2017

  4. [10]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 4

    2022 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Memory in plain sight: Surveying the uncanny resemblances of as- sociative memories and diffusion models

    Benjamin Hoover, Hendrik Strobelt, Dmitry Krotov, Judy Hoffman, Zsolt Kira, and Duen Horng Chau. Memory in plain sight: Surveying the uncanny resemblances of as- sociative memories and diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16750, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Imagenette: A smaller subset of 10 easily classified classes from imagenet, 2019

    Jeremy Howard. Imagenette: A smaller subset of 10 easily classified classes from imagenet, 2019. 6, 3

    2019

  7. [14]

    Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps

    Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Fan Bao, Jianfei Chen, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu. Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:5775–5787, 2022. 3

    2022

  8. [15]

    John W. Milnor. Attractor. Scholarpedia, 1(11):1815, 2006. 4

    2006

  9. [16]

    Dall ·e 2 pre-training mitigations

    Alex Nichol. Dall ·e 2 pre-training mitigations. https: / / openai . com / index / dall - e - 2 - pre - training - mitigations/, 2022. [Accessed 10-10-2024]. 2

    2022

  10. [17]

    Memorization to generalization: The emergence of diffusion models from as- sociative memory

    Bao Pham, Gabriel Raya, Matteo Negri, Mohammed J Zaki, Luca Ambrogioni, and Dmitry Krotov. Memorization to generalization: The emergence of diffusion models from as- sociative memory. 2024. 3

    2024

  11. [18]

    A self-supervised descriptor for image copy detection

    Ed Pizzi, Sreya Dutta Roy, Sugosh Nagavara Ravindra, Priya Goyal, and Matthijs Douze. A self-supervised descriptor for image copy detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 14532–14542, 2022. 3, 6

    2022

  12. [19]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

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

    2021

  13. [20]

    Unveiling and mitigating memoriza- tion in text-to-image diffusion models through cross attention

    Jie Ren, Yaxin Li, Shenglai Zen, Han Xu, Lingjuan Lyu, Yue Xing, and Jiliang Tang. Unveiling and mitigating memoriza- tion in text-to-image diffusion models through cross attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11052, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 5

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn 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. 1, 3

    2022

  15. [22]

    Pho- torealistic 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. Pho- torealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural informati...

    2022

  16. [23]

    Diffusion art or digital forgery? investigating data replication in diffusion models

    Gowthami Somepalli, Vasu Singla, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. Diffusion art or digital forgery? investigating data replication in diffusion models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6048–6058, 202...

    2023

  17. [24]

    Understanding and mitigating copying in diffusion models

    Gowthami Somepalli, Vasu Singla, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. Understanding and mitigating copying in diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:47783–47803, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  18. [25]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502,

    2010 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A reproducible extraction of training images from diffusion models

    Ryan Webster. A reproducible extraction of training images from diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08694 ,

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    De- tecting, explaining, and mitigating memorization in diffusion models

    Yuxin Wen, Yuchen Liu, Chen Chen, and Lingjuan Lyu. De- tecting, explaining, and mitigating memorization in diffusion models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 5 Classifier-Free Guidance inside the Attraction Basin ...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Additional Analysis of the Attraction Basin In the paper, we discuss observing the attraction basin when applying zero CFG in the denoising process by observing the magnitude of ϵθ(xt, ep) − ϵθ(xt, e∅). Now the question arises, what is the trend when denoising with CFG? Does t...

  22. [30]

    We apply the same approach as present in Alg

    Experimental Results on Scenario 4 For Scenario 4, where memorization occurs due to the pres- ence of trigger words, we observed a dynamic transition point. We apply the same approach as present in Alg. 1. Experimental Results: We compare our approach with previous baselines i...

  23. [31]

    ""Listen to The Dead Weather’s New Song,

    Results when Finetuning SDv2.1 on LAION-100k We observed that finetuning SDv2.1 on the LAION-10k dataset [24] leads to exact memorization when using the Training Add rand numb [24] Add rand word [24] Wen et al. [28] Ren et al. [20] Ours (DTP) Ours (OG+DTP) Figure 11. Qualitati...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Scenario 1 We finetune Stable Diffusion v2.1 on 10,000 examples from the LAION dataset, publicly available here 1

    Detailed Experiment Settings 11.1. Scenario 1 We finetune Stable Diffusion v2.1 on 10,000 examples from the LAION dataset, publicly available here 1. The model was finetuned with image sizes 256x256 for 100,000 steps to allow it to memorize the small dataset entirely. During i...

  25. [33]

    Prompts for Figure 7 • ’Frozen Flower A’ • ’Clint Eastwood - Camp Pendleton’ • ’Adult Kids Half Face Rabbit Bunny Mask for Halloween/Easter/Masquerade/Carnival/Party- Luckyfine’ • ’Eplans Craftsman House Plan Open Layout With Flex Space’ • ’How the Mustang got its clothes’ • ’...

  26. [34]

    In this undated photo provided by the New York City Ballet, Robert Fairchild performs in

    Prompts for Figure 8 • Fattoush Salad with Roasted Potatoes • illusion art step by step ; Illusion Kunst, Illusion Art, Illu- sion Paintings, Coffee Drawing, Coffee Art, Coffee Time, Coffee Shop, Coffee Cups, Pencil Art Drawings • Christmas Comes Early to U.K. Weekly Home Ente...

  27. [35]

    More Examples of Transition Points We provide additional visualizations of transition points co- inciding with a fall in conditional guidance in Figure 13

  28. [36]

    We provide examples for Sce- nario 1 in Figure 14, Scenario 2 in Figure 17, Scenario 3 in Figure 15, and Scenario 4 in Figure 16

    More Visual Examples We provide more visual examples comparing our approach with baselines to showcase the effectiveness of our approach in mitigating memorization. We provide examples for Sce- nario 1 in Figure 14, Scenario 2 in Figure 17, Scenario 3 in Figure 15, and Scenari...

    2016

Pith tools

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