REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 47 references
Panoptic Diffusion Models: co-generation of images and segmentation maps
T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single diffusion model can co-generate a photorealistic image and an 8-bit-encoded panoptic segmentation map from one text prompt, with the map acting as built-in guidance so object shapes and scene layout follow…
desk verdict The co-generation idea is genuinely new, but this version's claims outrun its evidence: the train/inference noise mismatch is a load-bearing bug, and the evaluation doesn't back the SOTA claim. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the joint reverse diffusion step over the pair consisting of the image latent $x_t$ and the bit-encoded map $M_t$. Maps are first converted to 8-bit analog bits scaled to $[-1,1]$ so that discrete categories become continuous data, and during training noise $\epsilon_M \sim \mathcal{N}(0,2I)$ is added so the noise can flip bits. The model outputs both the image-noise estimate and a direct estimate of the clean map $M_0$, and the two outputs are combined in a DPM-solver-style update, the same fast ODE solver used for image denoising, extended to the map stream. In the transformer, image and map tokens are concatenated and processed by self-attention, which lets each modality condition the other; in the two-stream version, a zero-initialized convolution injects map-derived features into the frozen image stream. Multi-scale patching lets the map be predicted on a finer grid than the image latent without a separate decoder.
What would settle it
Run the published inference procedure but initialize the map stream with $\mathcal{N}(0,2I)$ noise instead of the $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ used in Algorithm 2, and compare MCD and category-wise bit-error rates on COCO validation prompts; if the mismatch matters, the generated maps will change measurably. A second decisive check is to feed the generated maps to a standard panoptic-quality evaluator and ask whether instances in the map align with objects in the co-generated image, since MCD cannot detect mislocated categories.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that image generation and panoptic segmentation can be posed as one joint diffusion problem rather than a generate-then-segment or segment-then-generate pipeline. PDM encodes each category ID on the map as eight analog bits scaled to $[-1,1]$, corrupts the map with Gaussian noise of variance 2 during training, and trains a transformer to predict the clean map and the image noise simultaneously. Because the map and image tokens attend to each other in the same transformer, the model learns the correlation among text, image, and layout; at inference the reverse process is run with a fast DPM-solver-style update for both streams, so image and map emerge together. The authors demonstrate this in a one-stream diffusion transformer and in a two-stream model built from a frozen pretrained image stream plus a tunable map stream connected by zero-initialized convolutions. They also introduce multi-scale patching to emit maps at two or four times the latent resolution and a Mean Count Difference (MCD) metric for evaluating the generated maps.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that a bit-encoded segmentation map, corrupted with $\mathcal{N}(0,2I)$ noise during training, can be recovered by the same fast ODE solver used for images when inference starts from $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ noise as written in the algorithm; if the map stream instead accumulates bit errors, the image stream is being guided by a garbled layout.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If the central claim holds, text-to-image models gain an internal scene layout: a prompt like an upside-down stop sign will tend to produce an octagonal stop-sign mask and image, because the map stream is trained to respect shape categories.
- Co-generation removes the need for an external segmentation model or a user-provided map at inference, while still allowing ground-truth maps to be supplied for text-guided image-to-image editing.
- The frozen-backbone two-stream design offers a parameter-efficient route to adding layout awareness to an existing diffusion model by fine-tuning only the map stream.
- Multi-scale patching implies that high-resolution segmentation maps can come from the same latent budget, with a trade-off between map resolution and map quality at patch factor four.
Reading between the lines
- Inference: because MCD only compares per-category pixel counts, two maps with identical category budgets but different spatial layouts score the same; a spatial metric such as Panoptic Quality would test whether co-generated maps actually align with objects in the co-generated image.
- Inference: the same joint-denoising idea could be applied to other discrete scene-structure outputs such as depth, edge maps, or keypoints, turning them into learned internal controls rather than external inputs.
- Inference: inference initializes the map stream from $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ while training corrupts maps with $\mathcal{N}(0,2I)$, so switching the initialization to $\mathcal{N}(0,2I)$ and measuring MCD would test the consistency of the pipeline, a comparison the paper does not report.
- Inference: the paper's scaling remark predicts that map quality and image quality improve together as model size grows, which could be checked by varying the hidden dimension and tracking FID and MCD jointly.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper introduces Panoptic Diffusion Models (PDM), which aim to generate an image and a panoptic segmentation map jointly from a text prompt. Two architectures are presented: a one-stream diffusion transformer based on U-ViT and a two-stream transformer with a pretrained image stream and a fine-tuned map stream. The method encodes panoptic maps as 8-bit analog bit-planes, adds Gaussian noise, and uses a modified DPM-solver to denoise image latents and maps in parallel. A Multi-Scale Patching mechanism is proposed to produce maps at resolutions up to four times the image latent, and a new metric, Mean Count Difference (MCD), is introduced to evaluate generated maps. The stated contributions are co-generation of images and panoptic maps, fast simultaneous denoising, a two-stream fine-tuning scheme, and state-of-the-art image generation with implicit scene control.
Significance. If the central claim were correct, PDM would be a notable contribution: a single text-conditioned diffusion model that produces both a photorealistic image and a structurally valid panoptic segmentation map, with the map providing built-in layout control. The idea of jointly denoising image and map streams is interesting, and the reported qualitative examples suggest a plausible direction. However, the paper as written does not establish the central claim. The quantitative image-generation results are worse than the U-ViT baseline, the map evaluation metric ignores spatial structure, and the map-noise schedule in training is inconsistent with the inference algorithm. These issues affect the load-bearing parts of the contribution. The manuscript also omits comparisons with established controllable-generation methods, so the 'state-of-the-art' claim is not substantiated.
major comments (5)
- [Abstract; Table 1] The abstract claims that PDM 'achieves state-of-the-art results in image generation with implicit scene control,' but Table 1 reports FID 18.52 for one-stream PDM and 10.99 for two-stream PDM, both worse than the U-ViT baseline at 8.29. Only the one-stream PDM with ground-truth maps (8.21) is slightly better than the baseline, and the two-stream PDM with maps is worse (11.61). The claim of 'comparable fidelity' is therefore contradicted by the paper's own numbers. No controlled-generation baselines (e.g., ControlNet, SpaText, UniGS) are included, so the 'state-of-the-art for implicit scene control' claim is unsupported. The authors should either temper the claims to match the reported results or add a proper comparison on the claimed task.
- [Sec. 3.6; Table 2] The proposed MCD metric only compares category-frequency histograms, not spatial layout, instance boundaries, or semantic correctness. The reported MCD values (1.522–1.638 on a [0,2] scale) indicate that the generated maps differ from ground-truth maps in the pixel counts of most categories, which does not demonstrate that the maps are valid panoptic segmentations. The qualitative figures are not sufficient to establish map quality. The authors should report standard panoptic segmentation metrics such as Panoptic Quality (PQ), or at least IoU, for the co-generated maps. This is load-bearing because the central claim is that PDM produces usable segmentation maps that control image generation.
- [Sec. 3.2; Algorithm 1; Algorithm 2] There is a concrete train/inference mismatch in the map noise scale. Training uses ϵM ∼ N(0, 2I) (Eq. 3 and Algorithm 1), while Algorithm 2 initializes M_t from N(0, 1). Appendix B.3 states that maps are not properly denoised when the noise variance is N(0, I), so the inference initialization in Algorithm 2 is inconsistent with the trained model. Furthermore, the DPM-solver update equations in Sec. 3.3 are derived under the standard assumption that the perturbation noise has unit variance; applying them directly to a forward process with non-unit noise (std=2) is not mathematically justified. The authors need to either use unit-variance map noise (if the bit-flipping motivation permits) or derive the correct solver for the non-unit-noise forward process, and then verify the generated maps are valid.
- [Sec. 4; Table 1] The experiments compare PDM only with text-to-image baselines (GLIDE, Imagen, VQ-Diffusion, UViT). Since the paper's claimed contribution is 'image generation with implicit scene control,' a fair evaluation must include methods that use spatial control, such as ControlNet, SpaText, or UniGS, or at least a sequential baseline that first generates a map and then generates an image conditioned on the map. Reporting raw FID/CLIP against text-only baselines does not evaluate the proposed method's claimed advantage of built-in layout control. Without such comparisons, the 'state-of-the-art' claim cannot be assessed.
- [Sec. 3.4; Eq. 6-7] Equation 6 is simply the chain rule of probability, not a derivation that joint prediction is feasible or beneficial. The text argues that 'the intermediate features already contain the segmentation information' and that self-attention conditions x_{t-1}, but this is an architectural assumption. The paper does not compare the joint model with a sequential model that first generates M0 and then generates x0 conditioned on the map. An ablation isolating the benefit of joint prediction would be needed to support the claim that co-generation is advantageous over a two-stage pipeline.
minor comments (6)
- [Sec. 3.2, Eq. 1] Equation 1 uses βt as the noise coefficient without a square root, whereas the standard DDPM forward process uses sqrt(βt) for the noise term; please correct the notation or clarify the schedule.
- [Sec. 2.4] The text states 'We will include a comparison of the number of parameters to highlight this advantage,' but no such parameter-count comparison appears in the experiments.
- [Sec. 4.1] The sentence 'We generate 30,000 images and segmentation maps from 5,000 text files in the COCO dataset’s validation set, with each file containing five captions' is ambiguous and the arithmetic appears inconsistent; please specify the exact evaluation protocol.
- [Algorithm 2] Variable naming is inconsistent: 'Xt' in the initialization line and 'xt' in the loop; unify the notation to avoid confusion.
- [Appendix D] The paper notes that COCO has only 133 panoptic classes but category IDs range up to 200; please clarify how the 8-bit encoding maps the actual 133 classes and how unused IDs are handled.
- [Throughout] There are several typos, e.g., 'Evaluaiton' in Sec. 4.2 and 'segmanation' in Sec. 3.4; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity; the core image-map co-generation derivation is self-contained and benchmarked against external targets.
full rationale
The claimed derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The map stream is trained by MSE against ground-truth bit-encoded panoptic maps (Eq. 3 and Algorithm 1), and the image stream is trained to predict the externally defined Gaussian noise added to real image latents; neither target is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Inference updates both streams with a DPM-solver-style update, and the proposed MCD metric in Sec. 3.6 is an evaluation statistic, not a training objective or derivation input. FID and CLIP are external benchmarks, and the zero-map-input ablation in Appendix B.2 checks that the map stream is not merely extracting maps from image features. The only self-citation (Long et al., 2021) appears in a related-work enumeration of adaptive fine-tuning methods and is not load-bearing. The train/inference map-noise mismatch (N(0,2I) in training vs N(0,1) in Algorithm 2) and the lack of MCD comparisons against baselines are correctness and support concerns, not circular reductions; no equation or claim in the paper is equivalent to its own inputs by construction.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- Map noise standard deviation =
2.0
- Classifier-free guidance scale gamma =
1.0
- Map loss weight lambda =
1.0
- Patch factor =
2
assumptions (4)
- standard math DPM-solver++ ODE solution for reverse diffusion is valid for the joint image-map process
- domain assumption Analog bit encoding from Chen et al. 2022 preserves panoptic category information under diffusion noise
- ad hoc to paper Joint prediction of xt-1 and M0 is as good as sequential generation conditioned on the map
- domain assumption COCO2017 text captions are sufficient to supervise text-conditioned panoptic layout generation
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Panoptic Diffusion Models: co-generation of images and segmentation maps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/35UBSBGG
@misc{pith2026241202929,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Panoptic Diffusion Models: co-generation of images and segmentation maps},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/35UBSBGG}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02929}
}
read the original abstract
Recently, diffusion models have demonstrated impressive capabilities in text-guided and image-conditioned image generation. However, existing diffusion models cannot simultaneously generate an image and a panoptic segmentation of objects and stuff from the prompt. Incorporating an inherent understanding of shapes and scene layouts can improve the creativity and realism of diffusion models. To address this limitation, we present Panoptic Diffusion Model (PDM), the first model designed to generate both images and panoptic segmentation maps concurrently. PDM bridges the gap between image and text by constructing segmentation layouts that provide detailed, built-in guidance throughout the generation process. This ensures the inclusion of categories mentioned in text prompts and enriches the diversity of segments within the background. We demonstrate the effectiveness of PDM across two architectures: a unified diffusion transformer and a two-stream transformer with a pretrained backbone. We propose a Multi-Scale Patching mechanism to generate high-resolution segmentation maps. Additionally, when ground-truth maps are available, PDM can function as a text-guided image-to-image generation model. Finally, we propose a novel metric for evaluating the quality of generated maps and show that PDM achieves state-of-the-art results in image generation with implicit scene control.
Figures
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Avrahami, O.; Hayes, T.; Gafni, O.; Gupta, S.; Taigman, Y.; Parikh, D.; Lischinski, D.; Fried, O.; and Yin, X. 2023. SpaText: Spatio-Textual Representation for Controllable Image Generation. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE
work page 2023
-
[2]
Bao, F.; Nie, S.; Xue, K.; Cao, Y.; Li, C.; Su, H.; and Zhu, J. 2023. All are Worth Words: A ViT Backbone for Diffusion Models. In CVPR
work page 2023
-
[3]
Bar-Tal, O.; Chefer, H.; Tov, O.; Herrmann, C.; Paiss, R.; Zada, S.; Ephrat, A.; Hur, J.; Liu, G.; Raj, A.; Li, Y.; Rubinstein, M.; Michaeli, T.; Wang, O.; Sun, D.; Dekel, T.; and Mosseri, I. 2024. Lumiere: A Space-Time Diffusion Model for Video Generation. arXiv:2401.12945
arXiv 2024
-
[4]
Baranchuk, D.; Rubachev, I.; Voynov, A.; Khrulkov, V.; and Babenko, A. 2021. Label-Efficient Semantic Segmentation with Diffusion Models. arXiv:2112.03126
arXiv 2021
-
[5]
A.; Zhai, S.; Hu, S.; Zheng, D.; Talbott, W.; and Gu, E
Berthelot, D.; Autef, A.; Lin, J.; Yap, D. A.; Zhai, S.; Hu, S.; Zheng, D.; Talbott, W.; and Gu, E. 2023. TRACT: Denoising Diffusion Models with Transitive Closure Time-Distillation. arXiv:2303.04248
arXiv 2023
-
[6]
Brooks, T.; Holynski, A.; and Efros, A. A. 2023. InstructPix2Pix: Learning to Follow Image Editing Instructions. arXiv:2211.09800
arXiv 2023
-
[7]
Brooks, T.; Peebles, B.; Holmes, C.; DePue, W.; Guo, Y.; Jing, L.; Schnurr, D.; Taylor, J.; Luhman, T.; Luhman, E.; Ng, C.; Wang, R.; and Ramesh, A. 2024. Video generation models as world simulators
2024
-
[8]
Carion, N.; Massa, F.; Synnaeve, G.; Usunier, N.; Kirillov, A.; and Zagoruyko, S. 2020. End-to-End Object Detection with Transformers. CoRR, abs/2005.12872
arXiv 2020
Show all 47 references
-
[9]
Chen, T.; Li, L.; Saxena, S.; Hinton, G.; and Fleed, D. 2023. A Generalist Framework for Panoptic Segmentation of Images and Videos. 909--919
2023
-
[10]
Chen, T.; Zhang, R.; and Hinton, G. 2022. Analog bits: Generating discrete data using diffusion models with self-conditioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.04202
2022 arXiv
-
[11]
G.; Kirillov, A.; and Girdhar, R
Cheng, B.; Misra, I.; Schwing, A. G.; Kirillov, A.; and Girdhar, R. 2022. Masked-attention Mask Transformer for Universal Image Segmentation
2022
-
[12]
Dhariwal, P.; and Nichol, A. 2021. Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Synthesis. CoRR, abs/2105.05233
2021 arXiv
-
[13]
Gafni, O.; Polyak, A.; Ashual, O.; Sheynin, S.; Parikh, D.; and Taigman, Y. 2022. Make-A-Scene: Scene-Based Text-to-Image Generation with Human Priors. arXiv:2203.13131
2022 arXiv
-
[14]
Girshick, R. B. 2015. Fast R-CNN . CoRR, abs/1504.08083
2015 arXiv
-
[15]
Gu, S.; Chen, D.; Bao, J.; Wen, F.; Zhang, B.; Chen, D.; Yuan, L.; and Guo, B. 2021. Vector Quantized Diffusion Model for Text-to-Image Synthesis. CoRR, abs/2111.14822
2021 arXiv
-
[16]
He, K.; Gkioxari, G.; Doll \' a r, P.; and Girshick, R. B. 2017. Mask R-CNN . CoRR, abs/1703.06870
2017 arXiv
-
[17]
Hertz, A.; Mokady, R.; Tenenbaum, J.; Aberman, K.; Pritch, Y.; and Cohen-Or, D. 2022. Prompt-to-Prompt Image Editing with Cross Attention Control. arXiv:2208.01626
2022 arXiv
-
[18]
L.; and Choi, Y
Hessel, J.; Holtzman, A.; Forbes, M.; Bras, R. L.; and Choi, Y. 2022. CLIPScore: A Reference-free Evaluation Metric for Image Captioning. arXiv:2104.08718
2022 arXiv
-
[19]
Heusel, M.; Ramsauer, H.; Unterthiner, T.; Nessler, B.; and Hochreiter, S. 2017. GANs Trained by a Two Time-Scale Update Rule Converge to a Local Nash Equilibrium. In Guyon, I.; Luxburg, U. V.; Bengio, S.; Wallach, H.; Fergus, R.; Vishwanathan, S.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advan...
2017
-
[20]
P.; Poole, B.; Norouzi, M.; Fleet, D
Ho, J.; Chan, W.; Saharia, C.; Whang, J.; Gao, R.; Gritsenko, A.; Kingma, D. P.; Poole, B.; Norouzi, M.; Fleet, D. J.; et al. 2022 a . Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02303
2022 arXiv
-
[21]
Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models. NIPS
2020
-
[22]
Ho, J.; and Salimans, T. 2022. Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance. arXiv:2207.12598
2022 arXiv
-
[23]
Ho, J.; Salimans, T.; Gritsenko, A.; Chan, W.; Norouzi, M.; and Fleet, D. J. 2022 b . Video Diffusion Models. arXiv:2204.03458
2022 arXiv
-
[24]
Houlsby, N.; Giurgiu, A.; Jastrzebski, S.; Morrone, B.; de Laroussilhe, Q.; Gesmundo, A.; Attariyan, M.; and Gelly, S. 2019. Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLP . CoRR, abs/1902.00751
2019 arXiv
-
[25]
B.; Rother, C.; and Doll \' a r, P
Kirillov, A.; He, K.; Girshick, R. B.; Rother, C.; and Doll \' a r, P. 2018. Panoptic Segmentation. CoRR, abs/1801.00868
2018 arXiv
-
[26]
C.; Lo, W.-Y.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Girshick, R
Kirillov, A.; Mintun, E.; Ravi, N.; Mao, H.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; Xiao, T.; Whitehead, S.; Berg, A. C.; Lo, W.-Y.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Girshick, R. 2023. Segment Anything. arXiv:2304.02643
2023 arXiv
-
[27]
L.; and Dollár, P
Lin, T.-Y.; Maire, M.; Belongie, S.; Bourdev, L.; Girshick, R.; Hays, J.; Perona, P.; Ramanan, D.; Zitnick, C. L.; and Dollár, P. 2015. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. arXiv:1405.0312
2015 arXiv
-
[28]
Long, Y.; Chakraborty, I.; Srinivasan, G.; and Roy, K. 2021. Complexity-aware Adaptive Training and Inference for Edge-Cloud Distributed AI Systems. In 2021 IEEE 41st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 573--583
2021
-
[29]
Lu, C.; Zhou, Y.; Bao, F.; Chen, J.; Li, C.; and Zhu, J. 2022. DPM-Solver: A Fast ODE Solver for Diffusion Probabilistic Model Sampling in Around 10 Steps. NeurIPS
2022
-
[30]
Lu, C.; Zhou, Y.; Bao, F.; Chen, J.; Li, C.; and Zhu, J. 2023. DPM-Solver++: Fast Solver for Guided Sampling of Diffusion Probabilistic Models. arXiv:2211.01095
2023 arXiv
-
[31]
Meng, C.; He, Y.; Song, Y.; Song, J.; Wu, J.; Zhu, J.-Y.; and Ermon, S. 2022. SDEdit: Guided Image Synthesis and Editing with Stochastic Differential Equations. arXiv:2108.01073
2022 arXiv
-
[32]
Mou, C.; Wang, X.; Xie, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Qi, Z.; Shan, Y.; and Qie, X. 2023. T2I-Adapter: Learning Adapters to Dig out More Controllable Ability for Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. arXiv:2302.08453
2023 arXiv
-
[33]
Nichol, A.; and Dhariwal, P. 2021. Improved Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models. CoRR, abs/2102.09672
2021 arXiv
-
[34]
Nichol, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Ramesh, A.; Shyam, P.; Mishkin, P.; McGrew, B.; Sutskever, I.; and Chen, M. 2021. GLIDE: Towards Photorealistic Image Generation and Editing with Text-Guided Diffusion Models. CoRR, abs/2112.10741
2021 arXiv
-
[35]
Peebles, W.; and Xie, S. 2022. Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09748
2022 arXiv
-
[36]
W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; Krueger, G.; and Sutskever, I
Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; Krueger, G.; and Sutskever, I. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. arXiv:2103.00020
2021 arXiv
-
[37]
Ramesh, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Nichol, A.; Chu, C.; and Chen, M. 2022. Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents. arXiv:2204.06125
2022 arXiv
-
[38]
Ren, Y.; Xia, X.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wu, J.; Xie, P.; Wang, X.; and Xiao, X. 2024. Hyper-SD: Trajectory Segmented Consistency Model for Efficient Image Synthesis. arXiv:2404.13686
2024 arXiv
-
[39]
Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models. CVPR, abs/2112.10752
2022 arXiv
-
[40]
Saharia, C.; Chan, W.; Saxena, S.; Li, L.; Whang, J.; Denton, E.; Ghasemipour, S. K. S.; Ayan, B. K.; Mahdavi, S. S.; Lopes, R. G.; Salimans, T.; Ho, J.; Fleet, D. J.; and Norouzi, M. 2022. Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Language Understanding. arXiv:2...
2022 arXiv
-
[41]
Salimans, T.; and Ho, J. 2022. Progressive Distillation for Fast Sampling of Diffusion Models. ICLR, abs/2202.00512
2022 arXiv
-
[42]
Singer, U.; Polyak, A.; Hayes, T.; Yin, X.; An, J.; Zhang, S.; Hu, Q.; Yang, H.; Ashual, O.; Gafni, O.; Parikh, D.; Gupta, S.; and Taigman, Y. 2022. Make-A-Video: Text-to-Video Generation without Text-Video Data. arXiv:2209.14792
2022 arXiv
-
[43]
Song, J.; Meng, C.; and Ermon, S. 2021. Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models. ICLR, abs/2010.02502
2021 arXiv
-
[44]
Z.; Zhou, H.; and Shen, C
Wu, W.; Zhao, Y.; Shou, M. Z.; Zhou, H.; and Shen, C. 2024. DiffuMask: Synthesizing Images with Pixel-level Annotations for Semantic Segmentation Using Diffusion Models. arXiv:2303.11681
2024 arXiv
-
[45]
Zhang, L.; Rao, A.; and Agrawala, M. 2023. Adding Conditional Control to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models
2023
-
[46]
, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline
ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...
-
[47]
write newline
" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...
Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.