Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

IntroStyle: Training-Free Introspective Style Attribution using Diffusion Features

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 artistic style attribution can be performed using only the features produced by a text-to-image model's own denoising network, with no external modules or retraining, outperforming trained state-of-the-art baselines…

desk verdict Solid training-free style retrieval with real gains on WikiArt/DomainNet, but the ArtSplit disentanglement evidence is weaker than claimed and needs a fix before the paper's central claim is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14432 v2 pith:7IGJY4H7 submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CV eess.IV

Anand Kumar , Jiteng Mu , Nuno Vasconcelos This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords styleattributiondiffusionfeaturestraining-freeretrieval2-WassersteindistanceArtSplitdatasetStablecontent-styledisentanglement
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

Style attribution, identifying which artist's style a query image matches, is normally done with dedicated contrastively trained models. This paper proposes IntroStyle, a training-free alternative that extracts channel-wise mean and variance from a chosen layer of Stable Diffusion's denoising U-Net and compares images with the 2-Wasserstein distance. The authors report that this simple descriptor outperforms the trained CSD and GDA baselines by large margins on WikiArt and DomainNet, and on the new ArtSplit dataset designed to separate style from semantics. If correct, the result implies that a generative model already encodes enough style information to attribute its own outputs, making attribution possible without extra learned components.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the IntroStyle descriptor: the vector of channel-wise means and variances of a feature tensor extracted from a selected up-block of the denoising U-Net after the image has been VAE-encoded and noised to timestep t. The framing treats the U-Net as an autoencoder whose encoder half produces style-relevant statistics, echoing the AdaIN idea that first- and second-order feature statistics encode style. The descriptor is compared between images with the 2-Wasserstein distance between the corresponding diagonal Gaussian distributions. The secondary instrument is ArtSplit, a synthetic reference dataset of 60,000 images built by crossing 50 ChatGPT-generated style prompts with 100 semantic prompts and generating images with Stable Diffusion v2.1, designed so that style and semantics can be evaluated separately.

What would settle it

Inspect the style prompts: the Van Gogh style prompt in the supplement includes 'night sky, Starry Night atmosphere,' semantic content embedded in a style description. If removing such leaked semantic terms from all 50 prompts and regenerating ArtSplit substantially reduces IntroStyle's style-evaluation advantage over CSD, the reported disentanglement is an artifact of the testbed rather than of the feature representation. A second check is a human study rating whether images sharing a style prompt are consistently judged as sharing an artist's style.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is introspective style attribution: the denoising network of a diffusion model, trained only for image synthesis, internally produces features whose per-channel mean and variance are sufficient to retrieve images of the same artistic style. The paper establishes this by constructing the IntroStyle descriptor from an early up-block of the Stable Diffusion v2.1 U-Net at a low noise timestep, treating the resulting statistics as a diagonal multivariate Gaussian, and measuring similarity with the 2-Wasserstein distance. On the WikiArt dataset the method achieves a mAP@1 of 0.887 against 0.646 for CSD, on DomainNet 0.954 against 0.833, and on ArtSplit a style-evaluation score of 0.823 against 0.636, while obtaining a lower semantic-evaluation score, indicating reduced content bias.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that images synthesized from ChatGPT-generated style prompts are a valid and semantics-free stand-in for human-judged artistic style, so the ArtSplit margins reflect pure style attribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On WikiArt, top-1 style retrieval rises to 88.7% mAP from 64.6% for the trained CSD baseline.
  • Since no learning is involved, attribution can run as a side computation on an already deployed diffusion model, with only feature extraction and a distance metric added.
  • The ArtSplit testbed allows quantitative separation of style and semantic retrieval, and the reported scores indicate IntroStyle is less semantically biased than trained baselines.
  • The method's performance is stable across similarity metrics L2, JSD, and W2, with the 2-Wasserstein distance marginally best.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because ArtSplit images are generated by the same Stable Diffusion model that supplies IntroStyle features, the reported disentanglement is strongest if synthetic style prompts capture human-recognizable artistic style; a human-rating study of ArtSplit could settle that.
  • The style descriptor could plausibly double as a tunable style-similarity signal for generation-time steering, such as rejection sampling or guidance away from a protected artist's style, which the paper mentions only as a possible direction.
  • The ablation showing performance collapses for timesteps above 400 suggests style information lives in the early denoising stages, hinting that style attribution and generation-time style control share the same low-noise feature statistics.
  • If the results transfer to other diffusion backbones, training-free attribution could become a standard audit tool for generative models, but the paper only evaluates Stable Diffusion v2.1.
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 proposes IntroStyle, a training-free style attribution method that computes channel-wise mean and variance of intermediate Stable Diffusion UNet features at a chosen up-block and compares images via the 2-Wasserstein distance between the resulting diagonal Gaussians. The authors evaluate on WikiArt and DomainNet, reporting large improvements over trained baselines such as CSD and GDA (e.g., WikiArt mAP@1 of 0.887 versus 0.646 for CSD). They also introduce ArtSplit, a synthetic dataset generated with Stable Diffusion v2.1 from ChatGPT-generated style and semantic prompts, intended to isolate style from semantics, and report Style-Eval@10 of 0.823 and Semantic-Eval@10 of 0.114 for IntroStyle. Ablations study the timestep, up-block index, and similarity metric.

Significance. If the WikiArt and DomainNet results are valid, this is a practically important result: it achieves strong style retrieval without training or external feature extractors, using only the diffusion model's own features, and the simplicity of the method is appealing. The reported gains are large and consistent across ablations, which is notable. However, the ArtSplit-based evidence for style-semantic disentanglement is compromised by prompt leakage and by the identity of the generator and feature extractor, so the disentanglement claim is not established by the current experiments. The paper would benefit from either fixing the dataset or substantially weakening the disentanglement claim while retaining the real-data retrieval results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Supplement D (Fig. 10 vs Fig. 11)] The claim that style prompts 'omit semantic content' is directly contradicted by the paper's own example. The Van Gogh style prompt (Supplement Fig. 10) explicitly contains 'night sky, Starry Night atmosphere', while the corresponding semantic prompt (Fig. 11) also describes a night sky above a village. Because this style prompt is used to generate an entire row of the ArtSplit grid, the style/semantic separation is violated for at least this cell, so the Style-Eval@10 and Semantic-Eval@10 numbers in Table 2 cannot be interpreted as measuring style-semantic disentanglement. The authors should audit all 50 artists' style prompts for semantic leakage, report the fraction of cells with leakage, and either regenerate the style prompts or restrict the disentanglement claims to a verified clean subset.
  2. [Section 4, Section 5.3, Table 2] Because ArtSplit retrieval images are generated with Stable Diffusion v2.1 and IntroStyle features are extracted from the very same Stable Diffusion v2.1 network, the comparison against external baselines (CLIP, DINO, GDA, CSD) is confounded: IntroStyle has privileged access to the internal feature distribution of the retrieval set. The paper does not discuss or control for this identity. Please add an experiment where the retrieval set is generated by a different text-to-image model (e.g., SD-XL or a fine-tuned SD v2.1 variant) and report whether the IntroStyle margin persists; alternatively, provide a quantitative control showing that the shared generator does not inflate the reported ArtSplit scores.
  3. [Section 5.5, Fig. 7, Table 3] The default hyperparameters t=25 and idx=1 are selected as the best performing on WikiArt and DomainNet, the same datasets whose headline numbers are reported in Table 1. This makes the reported results optimistic (selection on the test sets). The paper should report the performance of a fixed configuration chosen without access to the evaluation labels (for example t=50 with idx=1), use a validation split, or demonstrate that the main conclusions are unchanged across the robust region shown in Fig. 7 (t in [0,200] and idx in {0,1,2}). The current protocol weakens the claim that IntroStyle outperforms baselines by a wide margin for the chosen hyperparameters.
  4. [Section 3.3, Eq. (1)] The feature representation is computed by noising the latent z0 with a random sample epsilon_t according to Eq. (1), but the paper never specifies whether a fixed random seed is used, whether multiple noise samples are averaged, or whether a deterministic forward diffusion is applied. Without this specification, the numbers in Tables 1 and 2 are not reproducible, and the reported comparisons may depend on the particular noise realizations. Please specify the exact protocol for the forward noising step and report the stability of the retrieval metrics over at least five different noise seeds; the 'varying seeds' statement in Supplement C is too vague to resolve this issue.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] In the row for 'GDA DINO ViT-B', the value '0.8888' for Recall@100 appears to be a typo; it should likely read '0.888' or '0.889'.
  2. [Supplement, Figs. 7-9] The x-axis and tick labels in the supplement figures render as unicode escape sequences (e.g., '/uni00000013'); please ensure the figures are compiled correctly so the timestep values are readable.
  3. [Section 5.3] Please define Semantic-Eval@10 operationally so the reader can verify the statement that random performance is 'around 0.01'; the expected precision at 10 under random retrieval is 10 * (600/60000) / 10 = 0.01, but the definition used to compute the reported 0.114 should be given explicitly.
  4. [Table 5, Section 6] State explicitly that the 808M parameter count refers to the pretrained Stable Diffusion model and that IntroStyle introduces no new trainable parameters, to avoid implying that the method itself has a larger model footprint than the diffusion model.
  5. [Supplement C] The sentence 'varying seeds we obtained 0.002/0.001 for mAP/Recall @10 respectively' is unclear; specify which quantity is varied (noise seed, dataset split, or something else) and report the associated metric definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: IntroStyle is a fixed training-free descriptor; the ArtSplit same-model and prompt-leak issues are validity concerns, not circular reductions.

full rationale

Section 3.3 derives the IntroStyle representation as channel-wise mean/variance statistics of a fixed UNet block at a fixed timestep, compared with the 2-Wasserstein distance. No parameter is fitted to the retrieval labels, and the method is evaluated against external datasets (WikiArt, DomainNet) where it reports large margins over trained baselines (Table 1). The motivating claim that diffusion features are informative for properties like structure and color is backed by external prior work, not by a self-citation chain. I do not find any step where a reported prediction is equal by construction to a fitted input or where a definition smuggles in the target result. The ArtSplit evaluation does raise substantive validity concerns: the retrieval set is synthesized with Stable Diffusion v2.1, the same model whose internal features IntroStyle uses, and Supplement Fig. 10 shows the Van Gogh 'style' prompt containing 'night sky, Starry Night atmosphere', so the claimed clean style/semantic split is not demonstrated. These concerns bear on whether ArtSplit measures general artistic style or same-model prompt conditioning, and they should be weighed as correctness and generalization risks rather than as circularity. The only mildly in-sample element is that t = 25, idx = 1, and the W2 metric were selected on WikiArt/DomainNet ablations (Section 5.5) before being reported in Table 1; this is test-set hyperparameter selection, not a circular reduction. Overall, the derivation is self-contained, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented physical entities are introduced. The method rests on assumptions about what diffusion features encode and about the validity of the synthetic ArtSplit benchmark. The most fragile assumption is prompt independence, and the paper's own example weakens it.

free parameters (3)
  • timestep t = 25
    Selected as the default because it performed best on WikiArt and DomainNet (Section 5.5, Fig. 7), so the main reported results are partly tuned on the evaluation datasets.
  • up block index idx = 1
    Selected from ablations on WikiArt and DomainNet (Table 3) and chosen over idx=2 for computational efficiency (Supplementary Table 8).
  • similarity metric = 2-Wasserstein
    Chosen as the default after comparing L2, Gram, JSD, and W2 on WikiArt (Table 4); the practical gains over L2 and JSD are marginal.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Denoising network features of a diffusion model encode stylistic properties and can disentangle style from content.
    Borrowed from prior work on diffusion features for correspondence, segmentation, and classification (Refs. 40, 41, 45); stated as a hypothesis in Section 3.3, not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption Artist identity or dataset domain labels are a valid proxy for artistic style.
    WikiArt labels by artist and DomainNet by drawing domain; Section 5.1 follows the CSD protocol.
  • ad hoc to paper ChatGPT-generated style and semantic prompts are independent and cover the style-by-semantics grid.
    ArtSplit construction relies on this assumption, but the Van Gogh example in Supplement D contradicts it by including 'night sky, Starry Night atmosphere' in the style prompt, which is semantic content.
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion v2.1 can synthesize images that faithfully represent a human artist's style for all 50 artists.
    Used to build the 60,000 ArtSplit retrieval images; no human evaluation or artist validation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IntroStyle: Training-Free Introspective Style Attribution using Diffusion Features." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IGJY4H7

@misc{pith2026241214432,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IntroStyle: Training-Free Introspective Style Attribution using Diffusion Features},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IGJY4H7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14432}
}
read the original abstract

Text-to-image (T2I) models have recently gained widespread adoption. This has spurred concerns about safeguarding intellectual property rights and an increasing demand for mechanisms that prevent the generation of specific artistic styles. Existing methods for style extraction typically necessitate the collection of custom datasets and the training of specialized models. This, however, is resource-intensive, time-consuming, and often impractical for real-time applications. We present a novel, training-free framework to solve the style attribution problem, using the features produced by a diffusion model alone, without any external modules or retraining. This is denoted as Introspective Style attribution (IntroStyle) and is shown to have superior performance to state-of-the-art models for style attribution. We also introduce a synthetic dataset of Artistic Style Split (ArtSplit) to isolate artistic style and evaluate fine-grained style attribution performance. Our experimental results on WikiArt and DomainNet datasets show that \ours is robust to the dynamic nature of artistic styles, outperforming existing methods by a wide margin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14432 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Introspective Style Attribution (IntroStyle). Top two rows: comparison of style attribution by IntroStyle and a SOTA method (CSD). A query image, the top-3 retrieval results of IntroStyle, and the top-2 retrieval results of CSD are shown from left to right. Green col￾ors indicate correct and red incorrect retrievals. First row: WikiArt [34] dataset. Second row: proposed synthetic Artistic Style Split (ArtSplit) data… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. IntroStyle computation of style similarity: channel-wise mean µ and variance σ 2 are computed for the identified style layer features. Then 2-Wasserstein Distance is used to measure style similarities between a pair of images. forward process, a sequence of noisier codes zt are obtained by adding Gaussian noise to z0 according to zt = √ α¯tz0 + √ 1 − α¯tϵt, ϵt ∼ N(0, I) (1) Q where t ∈ {0, 1, . . . , T} is a timeste… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Artistic Style Split (ArtSplit) dataset samples. Each row shows images generated with the same style, and each column with the same semantics. features, in which case these statistics should be highly in￾formative of style and eliminate dependence on pixel-wise correlations. Based on this intuition, we propose a simple style feature representation for IntroStyle, based on the channel￾wise mean and variance of featur… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Image retrieval on WikiArt Dataset for IntroStyle, CSD, and GDA. The first column (left to right) shows the query image, followed by IntroStyle’s top 3 retrieval results, CSD and GDA, respectively. Green colors indicate correct and red for incorrect retrievals. WikiArt…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Image retrieval for style-based evaluation on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Image retrieval for semantic-based evaluation on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effects of different timesteps on WikiArt image retrieval. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Precision (mAP@10) as a function of timestep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Recall (Recall@10 ) as a function of timestep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Style prompt generation using ChatGPT. User Create a prompt to generate an image with the semantics of Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night. ChatGPT A night sky filled with vibrant stars above a quiet, small village nestled beneath rolling hills [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Semantic prompt generation using ChatGPT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Image Retrieval Results on WikiArt Dataset for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Additional Image Retrieval on WikiArt Dataset for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Additional Image Retrieval on WikiArt Dataset for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Additional Image Retrieval Results for Style-based Evaluation on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Additional Image Retrieval Results for Semantic-based Evaluation on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Improving image generation with better captions

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al. Improving image generation with better captions. Computer Science. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf, 2(3):8, 2023. 1

    2023

  2. [2]

    Extracting training data from diffu- sion models

    Nicolas Carlini, Jamie Hayes, Milad Nasr, Matthew Jagiel- ski, Vikash Sehwag, Florian Tramer, Borja Balle, Daphne Ip- polito, and Eric Wallace. Extracting training data from diffu- sion models. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 5253–5270, 2023. 1

    2023

  3. [3]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on com- puter vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Image style classification based on learnt deep correlation features

    Wei-Ta Chu and Yi-Ling Wu. Image style classification based on learnt deep correlation features. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 20(9):2491–2502, 2018. 3

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Style injec- tion in diffusion: A training-free approach for adapting large- scale diffusion models for style transfer

    Jiwoo Chung, Sangeek Hyun, and Jae-Pil Heo. Style injec- tion in diffusion: A training-free approach for adapting large- scale diffusion models for style transfer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8795–8805, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    AI art and the problem of consent

    Mathew Dryhurst. AI art and the problem of consent. ArtRe- view, 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-14. 1

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patash- nik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen- Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022. 3

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Im- age style transfer using convolutional neural networks

    Leon A Gatys, Alexander S Ecker, and Matthias Bethge. Im- age style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2414–2423, 2016. 3, 6, 7

    work page 2016

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Midjourney founder admits to using a ’hun- dred million’ images without consent

    Matt Growcoot. Midjourney founder admits to using a ’hun- dred million’ images without consent. PetaPixel, 2022. Ac- cessed: 2024-11-14. 1

    2022

  2. [10]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual rep- resentation learning

    Kaiming He, Haoqi Fan, Yuxin Wu, Saining Xie, and Ross Girshick. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual rep- resentation learning. arxiv e-prints, art. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.05722, 2019. 6, 7

    1911 arXiv

  3. [11]

    What does the rise of AI mean for the future of art? The Sydney Morning Herald , 2022

    The Sydney Morning Herald. What does the rise of AI mean for the future of art? The Sydney Morning Herald , 2022. Accessed: 2024-11-14. 1

    2022

  4. [12]

    Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization

    Xun Huang and Serge Belongie. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE international conference on computer vi- sion, pages 1501–1510, 2017. 3, 4

    2017

  5. [13]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 4401–4410, 2019. 3

    2019

  6. [14]

    Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion

    Nupur Kumari, Bingliang Zhang, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1931–1941, 2023. 3

    1931

  7. [15]

    Greg rutkowski was removed from stable diffusion, but ai artists brought him back

    Jose Antonio Lanz. Greg rutkowski was removed from stable diffusion, but ai artists brought him back. Decrypt, 2023. 1

    2023

  8. [16]

    Cosmo: Content-style modulation for image retrieval with text feed- back

    Seungmin Lee, Dongwan Kim, and Bohyung Han. Cosmo: Content-style modulation for image retrieval with text feed- back. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 802–812, 2021. 3

    2021

  9. [17]

    Parrot captions teach clip to spot text

    Yiqi Lin, Conghui He, Alex Jinpeng Wang, Bin Wang, Wei- jia Li, and Mike Zheng Shou. Parrot captions teach clip to spot text. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 368–385. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  10. [18]

    Stgan: A unified selec- tive transfer network for arbitrary image attribute editing

    Ming Liu, Yukang Ding, Min Xia, Xiao Liu, Errui Ding, Wangmeng Zuo, and Shilei Wen. Stgan: A unified selec- tive transfer network for arbitrary image attribute editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 3673–3682, 2019. 3

    2019

  11. [19]

    Deep photo style transfer

    Fujun Luan, Sylvain Paris, Eli Shechtman, and Kavita Bala. Deep photo style transfer. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4990–4998, 2017. 3

    2017

  12. [20]

    Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6038–6047, 2023. 3

    2023

  13. [21]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image classification

    Soumik Mukhopadhyay, Matthew Gwilliam, Vatsal Agar- wal, Namitha Padmanabhan, Archana Swaminathan, Srinidhi Hegde, Tianyi Zhou, and Abhinav Shrivastava. Diffusion models beat gans on image classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08702, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Do text-free diffusion models learn discriminative visual representations? In European Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 253–272

    Soumik Mukhopadhyay, Matthew Gwilliam, Yosuke Yam- aguchi, Vatsal Agarwal, Namitha Padmanabhan, Archana Swaminathan, Tianyi Zhou, Jun Ohya, and Abhinav Shri- vastava. Do text-free diffusion models learn discriminative visual representations? In European Conference on Com- pute...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Chatgpt, 2024

    OpenAI. Chatgpt, 2024. 5

    2024

  16. [24]

    Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation

    Xingchao Peng, Qinxun Bai, Xide Xia, Zijun Huang, Kate Saenko, and Bo Wang. Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 1406–1415,

  17. [25]

    Concept arithmetics for circumventing concept inhibition in diffusion models

    Vitali Petsiuk and Kate Saenko. Concept arithmetics for circumventing concept inhibition in diffusion models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 309–325. Springer, 2025. 1

    2025

  18. [26]

    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 Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14532–14542, 2022. 6, 7

    2022

  19. [27]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- 9 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- 9 sion. In International conference on machine learning...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents

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

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Generative ad- versarial text to image synthesis

    Scott Reed, Zeynep Akata, Xinchen Yan, Lajanugen Lo- geswaran, Bernt Schiele, and Honglak Lee. Generative ad- versarial text to image synthesis. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 1060–1069. PMLR, 2016. 3

    2016

  22. [30]

    Ai-created images lose US copyrights in test of new technology

    Reuters News. Ai-created images lose US copyrights in test of new technology. Reuters, 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-14. 1

    2023

  23. [31]

    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. 1, 3

    2022

  24. [32]

    Aladin: All layer adaptive instance normalization for fine- grained style similarity

    Dan Ruta, Saeid Motiian, Baldo Faieta, Zhe Lin, Hailin Jin, Alex Filipkowski, Andrew Gilbert, and John Collomosse. Aladin: All layer adaptive instance normalization for fine- grained style similarity. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Large-scale classifica- tion of fine-art paintings: Learning the right metric on the right feature

    Babak Saleh and Ahmed Elgammal. Large-scale classifica- tion of fine-art paintings: Learning the right metric on the right feature. arxiv 2015. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.00855,

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Worts- man, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in Neural In- f...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by {Text-to-Image} models

    Shawn Shan, Jenna Cryan, Emily Wenger, Haitao Zheng, Rana Hanocka, and Ben Y Zhao. Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by {Text-to-Image} models. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) , pages 2187–2204, 2023. 1

    2023

  29. [37]

    Alchemist: Parametric control of material proper- ties with diffusion models

    Prafull Sharma, Varun Jampani, Yuanzhen Li, Xuhui Jia, Dmitry Lagun, Fredo Durand, Bill Freeman, and Mark Matthews. Alchemist: Parametric control of material proper- ties with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Investigating style similarity in diffusion models

    Gowthami Somepalli, Anubhav Gupta, Kamal Gupta, Shra- may Palta, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, Abhinav Shri- vastava, and Tom Goldstein. Investigating style similarity in diffusion models. In European Conference on Computer Vi- sion (ECCV 2024). Springer Cham, 2024. 2, 3, 4, ...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020. 3

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Emergent correspondence from image diffusion

    Luming Tang, Menglin Jia, Qianqian Wang, Cheng Perng Phoo, and Bharath Hariharan. Emergent correspondence from image diffusion. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36:1363–1389, 2023. 2, 3, 4

    2023

  33. [41]

    Diffuse attend and segment: Un- supervised zero-shot segmentation using stable diffusion

    Junjiao Tian, Lavisha Aggarwal, Andrea Colaco, Zsolt Kira, and Mar Gonzalez-Franco. Diffuse attend and segment: Un- supervised zero-shot segmentation using stable diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 3554–3563...

    2024

  34. [42]

    P+: Extended textual conditioning in text-to- image generation

    Andrey V oynov, Qinghao Chu, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Kfir Aberman. P+: Extended textual conditioning in text-to- image generation. arXiv preprint, 2023. 2, 3, 4

    2023

  35. [43]

    Evaluating data attribution for text-to-image models

    Sheng-Yu Wang, Alexei A Efros, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Richard Zhang. Evaluating data attribution for text-to-image models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7192–7203, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  36. [44]

    Data attribution for text-to-image models by unlearning synthesized images

    Sheng-Yu Wang, Aaron Hertzmann, Alexei A Efros, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Richard Zhang. Data attribution for text-to-image models by unlearning synthesized images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09408, 2024. 1, 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Denoising diffusion autoencoders are unified self-supervised learners

    Weilai Xiang, Hongyu Yang, Di Huang, and Yunhong Wang. Denoising diffusion autoencoders are unified self-supervised learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15802–15812, 2023. 3, 4

    2023

  38. [46]

    Representation alignment for generation: Training diffu- sion transformers is easier than you think

    Sihyun Yu, Sangkyung Kwak, Huiwon Jang, Jongheon Jeong, Jonathan Huang, Jinwoo Shin, and Saining Xie. Representation alignment for generation: Training diffu- sion transformers is easier than you think. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06940, 2024. 3

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Stack- gan: Text to photo-realistic image synthesis with stacked generative adversarial networks

    Han Zhang, Tao Xu, Hongsheng Li, Shaoting Zhang, Xiao- gang Wang, Xiaolei Huang, and Dimitris N Metaxas. Stack- gan: Text to photo-realistic image synthesis with stacked generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , p...

    2017

  40. [48]

    Style transfer via image component analysis

    Wei Zhang, Chen Cao, Shifeng Chen, Jianzhuang Liu, and Xiaoou Tang. Style transfer via image component analysis. IEEE Transactions on multimedia , 15(7):1594–1601, 2013. 3

    2013

  41. [49]

    style” prompt and used 2 of their paintings to generate “semantic

    Yuxin Zhang, Weiming Dong, Fan Tang, Nisha Huang, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, Tong-Yee Lee, Oliver Deussen, and Changsheng Xu. Prospect: Prompt spectrum for attribute-aware personalization of diffusion models.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 42(6):1–14, 2023. 3, 4 10 Supple...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.