Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 27 references

MADiff: Text-Guided Fashion Image Editing with Mask Prediction and Attention-Enhanced Diffusion

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read MADiff uses a learned mask and an attention-based noise swap to make text-guided fashion edits both local and strong.

desk verdict A serious, clearly written fashion-editing paper with a genuinely useful mask predictor and new benchmark, but the attention-enhanced editing-magnitude mechanism needs a cleaner ablation before the main claim is convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20062 v2 pith:YWZ6XNOF submitted 2024-12-28 cs.CV

Zechao Zhan , Dehong Gao , Jinxia Zhang , Jiale Huang , Yang Hu , Xin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords text-guidedimageeditingfashiondiffusionmodelsmaskpredictionattentionmapsDDIMinversionCLIPscoretraining-free
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper addresses two failures of general text-guided image editing applied to fashion: the edit lands on the wrong region, and the change is too weak to match the target text. MADiff attacks both with a two-stage design. First, MaskNet predicts where to edit, using the foreground, a DensePose map, and an LLM-extracted mask prompt. Second, a training-free Attention Processor strengthens the edit by taking the pixels with the highest attention values from a target-prompt noise map and inserting them into the mask region of the inversion noise map. The authors claim that on the new Fashion-E benchmark this yields stronger text alignment and better preservation of the original image than six existing editing methods.

What carries the argument

The Attention Processor is the load-bearing device: given a mask $m$ with $N$ pixels, it forms the set $G_{ed}$ of inversion-noise pixels inside the mask, identifies the $N/2$ pixels in the target-prompt noise map with the highest attention values, and substitutes $G_{ed}$ with those pixels, recycling the selected pixels at random if there are more masked pixels than selected ones. MaskNet is the second device: a lightweight UNet trained with MSE loss against cloth masks on Fashion-E, taking the foreground region, DensePose map, and an LLM-produced mask prompt as inputs to decide where editing should happen. The two devices split the problem cleanly: the mask says where, the attention map says what noise to put there.

What would settle it

Take a black t-shirt in front of a busy, high-contrast background and edit it to yellow. If the most-attended pixels fall on the background, the method will copy background detail into the shirt, and a text-alignment score on a batch of such images should drop relative to plain-background cases. That would show the attention premise does not hold for every fashion edit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that editing magnitude in diffusion models is controlled by the cross-attention map: in a probe of 200 black t-shirts edited to red and yellow, edits succeeded when attention values were high and failed when they were low. MADiff exploits this by replacing the pixels inside the predicted editing mask of the DDIM inversion noise map with the highest-attention pixels of a separate DDIM sampling noise map conditioned on the target prompt. The refined noise map is then blended with the inversion trajectory through the mask, so the edit is both localized and strong. On Fashion-E the authors report that this combination yields the best text-alignment score, the best content-preservation score, and the lowest perceptual difference among the six baselines considered.

Load-bearing premise

The method rests on the premise that the pixels the diffusion model pays most attention to are exactly the pixels that should be copied into the area being edited. The authors tested this only on 200 black t-shirts changed to red and yellow, then applied it to all fashion editing tasks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fashion editing becomes a two-step pipeline that can be applied to any diffusion model without retraining, since the Attention Processor only needs masks and attention maps.
  • Local shape edits such as changing sleeve length or collar shape become tractable, because MaskNet predicts the region the target text describes rather than the whole object.
  • The Fashion-E evaluation set provides four fixed tasks—color, detail, material, and combined editing—for fair comparison of future fashion editing models.
  • Mask and attention components can be improved independently: better masks improve preservation, better attention selection improves text alignment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the authors did not run is material and detail edits where the highest-attention pixels may fall on textures or the background; a batch of such edits with text-alignment scores would show whether the attention premise transfers beyond color swaps.
  • The fixed top-half rule could be replaced by a prompt-dependent or learned threshold; that would be a natural next step the paper does not address.
  • Because the LLM mask prompt keeps only shape words, texture and material edits may need a different prompt vocabulary; the paper does not evaluate this boundary.
  • The same swap mechanism could be ported to other masked editing domains, such as faces or vehicles, wherever a parser can supply the mask; that is an extension, not a claim of the paper.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MADiff, a training-free diffusion-based pipeline for text-guided fashion image editing. It consists of MaskNet, a lightweight UNet that predicts the editing-region mask from foreground segmentation, DensePose, and a shape-only mask prompt extracted by LLAMA3-8b, and an Attention-Enhanced Diffusion Model in which an Attention Processor selects the highest-attention pixels from a target-prompt DDIM sampling trajectory and copies them into the masked region of the inversion noise map before blended DDIM sampling. The authors also introduce Fashion-E, a fashion-image-editing benchmark with 29,380 training pairs (from Fashion-Gen plus cloth masks) and 2,639 evaluation images across color, detail, material, and comprehensive editing tasks. On this benchmark, MADiff reports the best CLIP-T (29.20), CLIP-I (90.37), and LPIPS (0.137) among six baselines. The central claims are that MaskNet improves editing-region localization and the Attention Processor strengthens editing magnitude.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper makes two practically useful contributions: a mask predictor that leverages shape-related language to localize edit regions, and a training-free attention-based noise-swapping mechanism that can be grafted onto Stable Diffusion editing pipelines. The Fashion-E benchmark, with task-specific target texts and per-task annotation, is a potentially valuable resource for the fashion-editing community, and the paper explicitly releases the evaluation protocol. The method is plausible and the qualitative examples suggest genuine improvements in editing magnitude. However, the significance is tempered by the absence of error bars or significance tests in the headline comparison, the lack of an isolated test of the attention-selection mechanism, and several missing implementation details that hinder independent verification. The contribution is incremental rather than paradigm-shifting: it combines known components (mask guidance, DDIM inversion, attention-map manipulation) in a new task-specific configuration, but the fashion-domain adaptation and the benchmark are the main novel elements.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II-B, Eqs. (4)–(5) and Table II] The paper's central claim that the Attention Processor strengthens editing magnitude via attention-weighted noise selection is not directly supported by the ablation. Table II removes the entire Attention Processor, so it cannot distinguish 'attention selection matters' from 'replacing masked noise with any target-prompt-sampled noise matters.' The only evidence for the attention mechanism is the 200-image black-t-shirt probe in Fig. 3, which is a correlation on a single task and does not control for prompt-dependent content. I request an ablation that replaces the top-attention pixels with (a) randomly chosen pixels from xno_S and (b) uniformly selected pixels inside the mask, keeping all other components fixed. If those variants reproduce the CLIP-T gain, the 'attention-enhanced' attribution in the title and abstract is unsupported and the method reduces to a mask-guided noise swap.
  2. [§II-B, Attention Processor and Eq. (5)] The mechanism by which attention increases editing magnitude is asserted but never measured. The paper states that high attention-map values correlate with successful edits, yet it never computes attention after forming the refined noise map; the attention map A is taken from the xno_S trajectory before substitution. The claim that the refined noise map 'with higher value of attention map' is obtained (Section II-B) is therefore untested. Please report attention-map values (or another direct measure of attention enhancement) before and after the noise substitution, or explicitly reframe the contribution as noise swapping without an attention-enhancement mechanism.
  3. [§III-B, Table I] The quantitative comparison reports single-point metrics with no error bars, no significance tests, and no per-task breakdown across the four Fashion-E task types. The differences that support the headline claims are small in some cases (LPIPS 0.137 vs. 0.139 for PnP), and the claim of 'significantly' outperforming baselines is not backed by statistical evidence. In addition, the evaluation is only on the author-constructed Fashion-E benchmark, so there is no external validation on an established editing benchmark. I ask for per-task results, variance across runs or subsets, and at least a paired test for the main CLIP-T/CLIP-I differences, or a softened claim if such tests are not feasible.
  4. [§II-B and §III-A] Several implementation details required for reproduction are missing: the Stable Diffusion version (SD1.4/SD1.5/SD2.x) and whether the same backbone is used for all baselines; the DDIM step counts S and T; how the averaged 16x16 attention map is aligned with a noise map of N pixels, particularly for masks that are not multiples of 16 or when the latent resolution differs from 16x16; and the exact LLAMA3 prompt used to extract the mask prompt. Without these, the Attention Processor cannot be reimplemented and the reported gains cannot be independently verified. Please include these details in a reproducibility appendix.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV] The word 'mothod' in the first sentence of the Conclusion is a typo and should be 'method.'
  2. [Section I] In the second paragraph, 'FPE [14]' should be 'FPE [17]' to match the reference list; the current citation assigns FPE to the InstructPix2Pix entry.
  3. [§II-B, Eq. (5)] The phrase 'pixels with higher attention values' is underspecified when attention values are tied to 16x16 spatial locations: please clarify whether the selection is per-pixel in the latent noise map or per attention-grid cell, and how ties are broken.
  4. [§II-B, Attention Processor] The sentence 'If all the pixels in Gpr are used once, the surplus pixels in Ged are replaced by randomly selected ones from Gpr' introduces randomness that is not controlled by a seed; please state whether a fixed seed is used and report variance from this random replacement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MaskNet is externally supervised and the Attention Processor is a constructive noise-substitution mechanism, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, MADiff has two load-bearing components: MaskNet and the Attention Processor. MaskNet is trained with MSE against cloth masks from Fashion-Gen (Section II-A), an external supervision signal; the predicted mask is then evaluated by CLIP-I/LPIPS preservation outside the mask, so the localization claim is not defined in terms of the metric it is supposed to explain. The Attention Processor (Eqs. 4-5) selects the N/2 highest-attention pixels from the target-prompt DDIM sampling trajectory xno_S and copies them into the masked region of the inversion noise map xS. This is a constructive mechanism, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: no model parameter is fit to the reported CLIP-T/CLIP-I/LPIPS values, and the attention map is computed independently of the final decoded image. The Fig. 3 probe (200 black t-shirts) motivates the design choice but does not define the output metric. The ablation in Table II removes the entire Attention Processor; although it does not isolate attention selection from arbitrary noise substitution, that is an experimental-validity limitation, not a circularity in the derivation. The benchmark Fashion-E is author-constructed, but the baselines are evaluated with their official implementations, and the central comparison is against external methods. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness argument is invoked. I find no equation that is equal to its input by construction and no fitted parameter repackaged as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution rests on a small number of hand-chosen components: the 50 percent attention threshold, undisclosed DDIM step counts, and the assumption that attention values indicate edit-relevant pixels. No new physical entities are introduced. MaskNet is trained on an existing dataset's cloth masks, but the text-to-mask supervision via LLAMA3 is a design choice with no independent evidence of reliability.

free parameters (3)
  • Top-attention pixel fraction = 0.5 (N/2 of the mask pixels)
    In Eq. 5, Gpr is defined as pixels with A(pix) > Vmin, where Vmin is the (0.5N)th highest attention value. This hand-chosen threshold directly controls how much target-prompt content is injected into the masked region.
  • DDIM step counts S and T = unreported
    The pipeline depends on S inversion steps and T-S sampling steps, but the paper never states these values. They affect the noise maps and attention maps that the Attention Processor uses.
  • Attention map resolution for averaging = 16 x 16
    The paper averages only attention maps with 16x16 resolution (Section II-B). This author-chosen resolution determines which spatial locations are selected and is not varied in any experiment.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math DDIM inversion and DDIM sampling equations (Eqs. 1-2) hold for the chosen Stable Diffusion backbone and the mask-editing pipeline.
    Adopted from prior work [5, 10] without derivation; needed for all subsequent blending and refinement steps.
  • ad hoc to paper Attention maps with higher values indicate pixels that should be moved into the editing region.
    The paper's Fig. 3 observation, based on 200 black t-shirts edited to red and yellow, is elevated to a general design rule in Section II-B. This is the load-bearing premise of the Attention Processor.
  • domain assumption The foreground region from Graphonomy, DensePose map, and LLAMA3 mask prompt are sufficient and correctly aligned inputs for MaskNet.
    Section II-A uses these three signals instead of full semantic segmentation or a learned text-to-mask model. Errors in any input propagate to the predicted editing mask.
  • domain assumption Fashion-Gen cloth masks are valid ground truth for the editing region aligned with the target text.
    The masks train MaskNet and are treated as correct segmentation of the region to edit; the paper does not measure annotation noise or text-mask alignment.
  • domain assumption CLIP-T, CLIP-I, and LPIPS are accepted proxies for editing quality and preservation.
    Metrics are inherited from prior work [25, 26] and are not specifically validated for fashion editing tasks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MADiff: Text-Guided Fashion Image Editing with Mask Prediction and Attention-Enhanced Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YWZ6XNOF

@misc{pith2026241220062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MADiff: Text-Guided Fashion Image Editing with Mask Prediction and Attention-Enhanced Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YWZ6XNOF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20062}
}
read the original abstract

Text-guided image editing model has achieved great success in general domain. However, directly applying these models to the fashion domain may encounter two issues: (1) Inaccurate localization of editing region; (2) Weak editing magnitude. To address these issues, the MADiff model is proposed. Specifically, to more accurately identify editing region, the MaskNet is proposed, in which the foreground region, densepose and mask prompts from large language model are fed into a lightweight UNet to predict the mask for editing region. To strengthen the editing magnitude, the Attention-Enhanced Diffusion Model is proposed, where the noise map, attention map, and the mask from MaskNet are fed into the proposed Attention Processor to produce a refined noise map. By integrating the refined noise map into the diffusion model, the edited image can better align with the target prompt. Given the absence of benchmarks in fashion image editing, we constructed a dataset named Fashion-E, comprising 28390 image-text pairs in the training set, and 2639 image-text pairs for four types of fashion tasks in the evaluation set. Extensive experiments on Fashion-E demonstrate that our proposed method can accurately predict the mask of editing region and significantly enhance editing magnitude in fashion image editing compared to the state-of-the-art methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20062 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. General-domain text-guided image editing models have inaccurate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our model. (a) Mask Prediction phase: The input image and target prompt are preprocessed to get the foreground region, densepose map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Fashion-E dataset. (a) Training Set. The aligned image-text pair is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison with State-of-the-Art methods on Fashion-E. Target texts are placed below the row of images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents,

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen, “Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffu- sion models,

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer, “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffu- sion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 10684–10695

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    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,” in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2022, vol. 35, pp. 36479–36494

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2020, vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” in International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images,

    Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried, “Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 18208–18218

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Blended latent diffusion,

    Omri Avrahami, Ohad Fried, and Dani Lischinski, “Blended latent diffusion,” in ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 2023, vol. 42, pp. 1–11

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance,

    Guillaume Couairon, Jakob Verbeek, Holger Schwenk, and Matthieu Cord, “Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Large scale GAN training for high fidelity natural image synthesis,

    Andrew Brock, Jeff Donahue, and Karen Simonyan, “Large scale GAN training for high fidelity natural image synthesis,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Diffusion autoencoders: Toward a meaningful and decodable representation,

    Konpat Preechakul, Nattanat Chatthee, Suttisak Wizadwongsa, and Su- pasorn Suwajanakorn, “Diffusion autoencoders: Toward a meaningful and decodable representation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 10619– 10629

    2022

  3. [11]

    Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models,

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani, “Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 6007–6017

    2023

  4. [12]

    Prompt tuning inversion for text-driven image editing using diffusion models,

    Wenkai Dong, Song Xue, Xiaoyue Duan, and Shumin Han, “Prompt tuning inversion for text-driven image editing using diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 7430–7440

    2023

  5. [13]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross- attention control,

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-or, “Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross- attention control,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions,

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros, “Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 18392–18402

    2023

  7. [15]

    Plug- and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation,

    Narek Tumanyan, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel, “Plug- and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 1921–1930

    2023

  8. [16]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey ...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Towards understanding cross and self-attention in stable diffusion for text-guided image editing,

    Bingyan Liu, Chengyu Wang, Tingfeng Cao, Kui Jia, and Jun Huang, “Towards understanding cross and self-attention in stable diffusion for text-guided image editing,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 7817–7826

    2024

  10. [18]

    Fashion- gen: The generative fashion dataset and challenge,

    Negar Rostamzadeh, Seyedarian Hosseini, Thomas Boquet, Wojciech Stokowiec, Ying Zhang, Christian Jauvin, and Chris Pal, “Fashion- gen: The generative fashion dataset and challenge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.08317, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Graphonomy: Universal human parsing via graph transfer learning,

    Ke Gong, Yiming Gao, Xiaodan Liang, Xiaohui Shen, Meng Wang, and Liang Lin, “Graphonomy: Universal human parsing via graph transfer learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2019, pp. 7450–7459

    2019

  12. [20]

    Densepose: Dense human pose estimation in the wild,

    Rıza Alp G ¨uler, Natalia Neverova, and Iasonas Kokkinos, “Densepose: Dense human pose estimation in the wild,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 7297–7306

    2018

  13. [21]

    Llama 3 model card,

    AI@Meta, “Llama 3 model card,” 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Grounded-instruct-pix2pix: Improving instruction based image editing with automatic target ground- ing,

    Artur Shagidanov, Hayk Poghosyan, Xinyu Gong, Zhangyang Wang, Shant Navasardyan, and Humphrey Shi, “Grounded-instruct-pix2pix: Improving instruction based image editing with automatic target ground- ing,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Process...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Texfit: Text-driven fashion image editing with diffusion models,

    Tongxin Wang and Mang Ye, “Texfit: Text-driven fashion image editing with diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2024, vol. 38, pp. 10198–10206

    2024

  16. [24]

    Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks,

    Tianhe Ren, Shilong Liu, Ailing Zeng, Jing Lin, Kunchang Li, He Cao, Jiayu Chen, Xinyu Huang, Yukang Chen, Feng Yan, et al., “Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14159, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation,

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman, “Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp...

    2023

  18. [26]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang, “The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2018, pp. 586–595

    2018

  19. [27]

    Fice: Text-conditioned fashion image editing with guided gan inver- sion,

    Martin Pernu ˇs, Clinton Fookes, Vitomir ˇStruc, and Simon Dobri ˇsek, “Fice: Text-conditioned fashion image editing with guided gan inver- sion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.02110 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.