Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

A Novel Diffusion Model for Pairwise Geoscience Data Generation with Unbalanced Training Dataset

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 UB-Diff, a diffusion model that learns a shared co-latent code from abundant velocity maps and a few paired seismic waveforms, can generate reliable paired velocity–seismic data and outperforms prior multi-modal and single-modal baselines…

desk verdict Credible new combination for unbalanced paired geoscience data generation, but the pairwise physical-consistency claim needs stronger evidence than the current indirect proxy and two visual examples. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00941 v1 pith:HSW54JN7 submitted 2025-01-01 cs.LG cs.CVphysics.geo-ph

Junhuan Yang , Yuzhou Zhang , Yi Sheng , Youzuo Lin , Lei Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CVphysics.geo-ph
keywords diffusionmodelmulti-modalgenerationpaireddataunbalancedseismicfull-waveforminversionco-latentrepresentationOpenFWI
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 tries to solve a practical data problem in scientific computing: paired multi-modal data, such as subsurface velocity maps and their seismic waveforms, are expensive to collect in matched form, yet one modality (velocity maps) can be simulated in abundance. It claims that a diffusion model can be trained mostly on the abundant modality by first learning a shared co-latent representation with a one-in-two-out encoder-decoder, then fine-tuning on a few thousand real pairs, and finally running diffusion in that co-latent space. On five OpenFWI datasets, with 24,000–60,000 velocity maps but only 1,000 or 5,000 paired waveforms, the method reports sharply lower FID scores than MT-Diffusion and the single-modality DDPM/Stable Diffusion baselines, and the generated pairs train an FWI network (InversionNet) that performs better on the original test data. The reason to care is that if true, a wide class of inverse problems with scarce paired measurements could be fed with synthetic training pairs generated from the abundant simulator-only side.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the one-in-two-out co-latent encoder-decoder, together with the two-step training scheme and the co-latent diffusion process. A single encoder E compresses an input velocity map into a latent vector z in $R^{{c×1×1}}$; two fully-connected layers map z into two modality-specific latent vectors z'_v and z'_s, which are decoded by a CNN decoder Dv (spatial velocity map) and a transformer-based decoder Ds (temporal seismic waveform). This architecture is what allows paired outputs to be generated from a single sampled latent. The two-step training first fits the encoder and the majority-decoder on the abundant velocity maps with an L1+L2 reconstruction loss, then fine-tunes on the paired minority data (sometimes freezing parts of the network); this lets the co-latent be shaped mostly by the abundant modality. The diffusion model runs in the co-latent space using a u-parameterization adapted from Salimans and Ho, so the generative model learns the distribution of velocity-map latents and inherits the ability to decode both modalities.

What would settle it

Take a generated velocity map from UB-Diff, run it through a finite-difference seismic wave simulator to obtain a reference waveform for that velocity map, and compare pointwise (L1/L2) with the waveform UB-Diff generates from the same co-latent code. If the mismatch is comparable to the mismatch between two independent random samples, then the co-latent is not enforcing physical pairing, and the pairwise evaluation via InversionNet is hiding that failure. Alternatively, shuffle the paired fine-tuning labels randomly and retrain: if the pairwise InversionNet metrics do not degrade sharply, the method is not learning a true velocity–seismic correspondence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the generative burden can be shifted from the scarce paired data to the abundant unpaired data. Concretely, the paper proposes UB-Diff, which trains an encoder E to map the abundant velocity maps into a compact co-latent code z, and two decoders Dv and Ds that map z back to velocity maps and seismic waveforms respectively. The encoder-decoder is first trained self-supervised on velocity maps alone, then fine-tuned on the limited paired examples with a freeze/unfreeze scheme; afterwards a diffusion model is trained in the co-latent space using all velocity maps, so that sampling a denoised latent and decoding it through both decoders yields a velocity map and a matching seismic waveform. The paper's empirical claim is that on FlatVel-A, CurveVel-A, FlatFault-A, CurveFault-A, and Style-A, this scheme yields better FID for both modalities, and better MAE/MSE/SSIM when the generated pairs are used to train InversionNet, than MT-Diffusion, DDPM, and a reproduced latent diffusion baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a latent code learned almost entirely from velocity maps aligns well with the seismic waveform latent space, so that a short fine-tuning on 1,000 or 5,000 pairs is enough to make the decoder produce physically consistent seismic counterparts for unseen co-latent samples.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Downstream FWI training can be bootstrapped from synthesized pairs: training InversionNet on 10,000 UB-Diff-generated pairs improved test MAE/MSE/SSIM over pairs from MT-Diffusion on nearly all datasets and settings.
  • The method exploits all of the majority-modality data even when only 1,000 or 5,000 paired samples exist; on FlatVel-A with 1,000 pairs it reports velocity FID of 16.45 and seismic FID of 97.03, far below the MT-Diffusion baseline.
  • Single-modality generation also improves: UB-Diff's velocity-map FID is lower than DDPM and Stable Diffusion on all five datasets in the 1k pair setting, and its seismic waveform FID beats SD in 7 of 10 tested configurations.
  • The framework should transfer to other domains where two modalities can be aligned in a common latent space, since nothing in the architecture depends on seismology specifics beyond the choice of decoders.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct physics test would strengthen the claim: feed a generated velocity map into a seismic forward solver (finite-difference wave simulation) and compare the simulated waveform with the waveform UB-Diff decodes from the same latent; the paper only validates pairwise quality indirectly through InversionNet reconstruction metrics, not by pointwise physical forward consistency.
  • The near-linear latent alignment premise may break for velocity structures far outside the paired fine-tuning distribution; a targeted test would fine-tune on simple flat-layer pairs and then generate complex faulted or Style-A-like structures to see whether the seismic output remains physically coupled to the velocity output.
  • The same two-step co-latent recipe could be applied to other unbalanced scientific pairs, e.g., abundant synthetic CO2 plume simulations with rare field monitoring data, or abundant anatomical images with scarce modality-matched labels, as long as a shared latent space can be established.
  • The freeze/unfreeze choice is a tunable knob that balances majority-group reconstruction against minority-group fidelity; the paper reports dataset-dependent decisions, suggesting a small validation-driven selection rule could be a useful extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes UB-Diff, a latent diffusion model for jointly generating paired velocity maps and seismic waveforms from unbalanced training data. The architecture is a one-in-two-out encoder-decoder that maps a velocity map to a co-latent code, which is decoded by a CNN to a velocity map and by a transformer to a seismic waveform. Training proceeds in two steps: a self-supervised reconstruction on all available velocity maps, followed by a fine-tuning step on a small number of paired seismic samples; the diffusion model is then trained in the co-latent space. On five OpenFWI datasets, the authors report substantially lower FID than DDPM, Stable Diffusion, and MT-Diffusion, and improved downstream FWI metrics when InversionNet is trained on the generated pairs.

Significance. If the reported results hold, UB-Diff is a meaningful step toward generative data augmentation for full-waveform inversion and for multi-modal scientific data in general, where paired data are scarce and one modality is abundant. The two-step training scheme is simple and the empirical FID gains are large and consistent across datasets, which is encouraging. The paper also provides a useful comparison of diffusion baselines in this setting. However, the current evaluation does not directly demonstrate that the generated pairs are physically consistent, and the statistical basis for the claims is limited to single runs; these gaps currently make the paper a promising candidate rather than a settled result.

major comments (3)
  1. [UB-Diff Framework, Eq. (3)] The central claim of 'reliable' paired generation is not established. The seismic decoder Ds is fine-tuned on only 1,000 or 5,000 pairs (Eq. 3), while the encoder and velocity decoder are trained almost exclusively on velocity maps (Eq. 2). The paper justifies the shared latent via the near-linear relationship of Feng et al. (2022b), but it does not verify that this relationship holds for the learned E or after fine-tuning. Table 3 is an indirect proxy: a high-capacity InversionNet can partially absorb mismatched pairs, and the paper does not compare with InversionNet trained on real pairs. Figure 6 contains only two examples. Please add an aggregate physics-based check, e.g., compute the physical forward response of generated velocity maps and compare it with the generated seismic waveforms over many samples, reporting MAE/MSE and correlation for UB-Diff and baselines; also report the InversionNet performance upper bound using real paired data.
  2. [Experimental Setup, Metrics] The FID scores for seismic waveforms are reported without specifying the feature extractor. Standard FID uses an ImageNet-trained Inception network, which is not meaningful for seismic waveforms, and the paper does not explain how the five-channel seismic data are fed into the FID computation. Please specify the feature extractor or use a modality-appropriate metric (e.g., a trained seismic autoencoder feature space, or Kernel Inception Distance). Until this is clarified, the FID improvements in Tables 2 and 5 are difficult to interpret.
  3. [Experimental Results, Tables 2–5] All quantitative results are single runs without error bars, seeds, or significance tests, so the wording 'significantly outperforms' in the abstract and conclusion is unsupported. Moreover, the freeze flag F is selected after seeing the test results ('We both freeze or not for the second step of training and report a better result', Training Setting), which is a form of test-set selection. Please report multiple seeds with means and standard deviations, and choose F (and other hyperparameters) on a validation split rather than on the test set.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos, including 'Optimizaiton' in the section heading and 'Experiential Setup' in the appendix; please proofread the text.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is hard to parse because the loss terms are nested without clear parentheses and the symbol θ*_ma is undefined (it should presumably be θ*_self); please rewrite the equation and define all symbols.
  3. [Figures 2 and 4] Figures 2 and 4 are low-resolution in the current version, making the arrows, labels, and the distinction between training and inference paths hard to read; please provide higher-quality figures.
  4. [Appendix, Experimental Results Discussion] The main text does not report which freeze flag F was chosen for each dataset and setting; please include the chosen F values in the tables or in a small appendix table for reproducibility.
  5. [References] Feng et al. 2022a and 2022b are cited with the same title 'An intriguing property of geophysics inversion'; please disambiguate the two references and ensure each citation points to the correct version.
  6. [Reproducibility] The paper does not mention whether code or trained models will be released; please add a code/data availability statement so that the large claimed improvements can be independently reproduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the core result is an external OpenFWI benchmark, and the main self-citation (Feng et al. 2022b) is motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

UB-Diff's claimed derivation chain is an empirical architecture and training recipe, not a formal derivation whose outputs are fixed by its inputs. The co-latent z=E(ma) (Eq. 1), the self-supervised majority-modality objective (Eq. 2), the minority fine-tuning objective (Eq. 3), and diffusion training on z0=E(ma) are all standard reconstruction and generation losses; no equation is constructed from the quantity that it is later claimed to predict. The pairwise-generation claim is tested externally: 10,000 generated pairs are used to train InversionNet and tested on the original OpenFWI dataset (Table 3), and FID is computed against the original data (Table 2). These are independent empirical checks, not fits renamed as predictions. The only notable self-reference is the motivation for a shared co-latent, which cites Feng et al. 2022b for a near-linear relationship between seismic and velocity latent spaces and is used to justify the architecture rather than to define any loss or metric. Because the paper's quantitative claims stand or fall on the reported benchmark numbers, this self-citation is not load-bearing. InversionNet (Wu and Lin 2019) is also from the same group, but it is a fixed, publicly benchmarked network used as an evaluator, not a tunable component of UB-Diff. Possible concerns about whether generated pairs are physically consistent for unseen structures are validity or robustness limitations, not circularity.

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

The ledger captures the modeling premises and hand-selected settings behind the reported performance. No code is released, so several architecture decisions must be treated as unverified design choices.

free parameters (5)
  • latent dimension c = 128
    Hand-chosen dimension of the co-latent z; affects capacity of the shared representation and is central to the method.
  • loss weights gamma1-gamma4 = 1.0
    All set to 1 for every experiment; no sensitivity analysis is shown.
  • diffusion timesteps T = 256
    Fixed for all models; standard choice, but not justified.
  • freeze flag F in step-2 fine-tuning = per-dataset 0 or 1
    Chosen post hoc to report the better result; this selection can inflate reported performance.
  • per-dataset learning rate and decay = 0.0001 to 0.0005, decay 0.9 to 0.995
    Tuned separately for each dataset; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math DDPM forward and reverse processes, and the Salimans-Ho u-parameterization, apply to this latent space.
    Invoked in the Diffusion Process section; treated as a standard result without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Seismic and velocity latent spaces are near-linearly related, as claimed in Feng et al. 2022b.
    Cited in the UB-Diff Framework section; motivates sharing one co-latent code.
  • domain assumption A latent code trained primarily on velocity maps can be fine-tuned to decode credible seismic waveforms with only 1,000 or 5,000 pairs.
    Core premise of the one-in-two-out network and the two-step training scheme; not proven independently.
  • domain assumption InversionNet trained on generated data and tested on original data is a valid proxy for pairwise fidelity.
    Used in the Experimental Results section; standard practice but not validated here.
  • domain assumption FID computed with a suitable feature extractor is a meaningful quality metric for seismic waveforms.
    FID is designed for natural images; the paper does not state which features are used for seismic data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Novel Diffusion Model for Pairwise Geoscience Data Generation with Unbalanced Training Dataset." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HSW54JN7

@misc{pith2026250100941,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Novel Diffusion Model for Pairwise Geoscience Data Generation with Unbalanced Training Dataset},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HSW54JN7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00941}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, the advent of generative AI technologies has made transformational impacts on our daily lives, yet its application in scientific applications remains in its early stages. Data scarcity is a major, well-known barrier in data-driven scientific computing, so physics-guided generative AI holds significant promise. In scientific computing, most tasks study the conversion of multiple data modalities to describe physical phenomena, for example, spatial and waveform in seismic imaging, time and frequency in signal processing, and temporal and spectral in climate modeling; as such, multi-modal pairwise data generation is highly required instead of single-modal data generation, which is usually used in natural images (e.g., faces, scenery). Moreover, in real-world applications, the unbalance of available data in terms of modalities commonly exists; for example, the spatial data (i.e., velocity maps) in seismic imaging can be easily simulated, but real-world seismic waveform is largely lacking. While the most recent efforts enable the powerful diffusion model to generate multi-modal data, how to leverage the unbalanced available data is still unclear. In this work, we use seismic imaging in subsurface geophysics as a vehicle to present ``UB-Diff'', a novel diffusion model for multi-modal paired scientific data generation. One major innovation is a one-in-two-out encoder-decoder network structure, which can ensure pairwise data is obtained from a co-latent representation. Then, the co-latent representation will be used by the diffusion process for pairwise data generation. Experimental results on the OpenFWI dataset show that UB-Diff significantly outperforms existing techniques in terms of Fr\'{e}chet Inception Distance (FID) score and pairwise evaluation, indicating the generation of reliable and useful multi-modal pairwise data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00941 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of FWI: (a) photo of a flat rock layer; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of UB-Diff, which utilizes all available data, benefiting the whole process, especially the diffusion process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 1-in-2-out network for seismic waveform and ve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diffusion process of UB-Diff, generating latent of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Generated velocity map by baselines and UB-Diff. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Generated seismic waveform samples by MT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the generated samples of paired velocity map and seismic waveform in FlatVel-A by UB-Diff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of the generated samples of paired velocity map and seismic waveform in CurveVel-A by UB-Diff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of the generated samples of paired velocity map and seismic waveform in FlatFault-A by UB-Diff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of the generated samples of paired velocity map and seismic waveform in CurveFault-A by UB-Diff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of the generated samples of paired velocity map and seismic waveform in Style-A by UB-Diff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * 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 mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    E.; Johnson, G.; Kloppenburg, A.; Ferrer, O.; Bell, R.; and Ayarza, P

    Alcalde, J.; Bond, C. E.; Johnson, G.; Kloppenburg, A.; Ferrer, O.; Bell, R.; and Ayarza, P. 2019. Fault interpretation in seismic reflection data: an experiment analysing the impact of conceptual model anchoring and vertical exaggeration. Solid earth, 10(5): 1651--1662

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    an AI-powered language model, O. 2023. ChatGPT . https://chat.openai.com/

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Z.; Tran, S

    Chen, C.; Ding, H.; Sisman, B.; Xu, Y.; Xie, O.; Yao, B. Z.; Tran, S. D.; and Zeng, B. 2024. Diffusion Models for Multi-Task Generative Modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17571

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    E.; and Tomizuka, M

    Chen, J.; Li, S. E.; and Tomizuka, M. 2021. Interpretable end-to-end urban autonomous driving with latent deep reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(6): 5068--5078

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    J.; Milles, L

    Dauparas, J.; Anishchenko, I.; Bennett, N.; Bai, H.; Ragotte, R. J.; Milles, L. F.; Wicky, B. I.; Courbet, A.; de Haas, R. J.; Bethel, N.; et al. 2022. Robust deep learning--based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN. Science, 378(6615): 49--56

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Deng, C.; Feng, Y.; Feng, S.; Jin, P.; Zhang, X.; Zeng, Q.; and Lin, Y. 2022. OpenFWI: Benchmark Seismic Datasets for Machine Learning-Based Full Waveform Inversion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (NeurIPS 2022) Datasets and Benchmarks Track

    work page 2022

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Dhariwal, P.; and Nichol, A. 2021. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 8780--8794

    2021

  2. [10]

    N.; and Geetha, S

    Dornadula, V. N.; and Geetha, S. 2019. Credit card fraud detection using machine learning algorithms. Procedia computer science, 165: 631--641

    2019

  3. [11]

    R.; Groh, M.; Herman, L.; Leach, N.; et al

    Epstein, Z.; Hertzmann, A.; of Human Creativity, I.; Akten, M.; Farid, H.; Fjeld, J.; Frank, M. R.; Groh, M.; Herman, L.; Leach, N.; et al. 2023. Art and the science of generative AI. Science, 380(6650): 1110--1111

    2023

  4. [12]

    Feng, Y.; Chen, Y.; Feng, S.; Jin, P.; Liu, Z.; and Lin, Y. 2022 a . An Intriguing Property of Geophysics Inversion. In The Thirty-ninth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Feng, Y.; Chen, Y.; Feng, S.; Jin, P.; Liu, Z.; and Lin, Y. 2022 b . An intriguing property of geophysics inversion. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 6434--6446. PMLR

    2022

  6. [14]

    Gong, S.; Li, M.; Feng, J.; Wu, Z.; and Kong, L. 2022. Diffuseq: Sequence to sequence text generation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08933

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    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. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  8. [16]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 6840--6851

    2020

  9. [17]

    Huang, R.; Huang, J.; Yang, D.; Ren, Y.; Liu, L.; Li, M.; Ye, Z.; Liu, J.; Yin, X.; and Zhao, Z. 2023. Make-an-audio: Text-to-audio generation with prompt-enhanced diffusion models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 13916--13932. PMLR

    2023

  10. [18]

    Jin, P.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Y.; Huang, S.; Liu, Z.; and Lin, Y. 2022. Unsupervised Learning of Full-Waveform Inversion: Connecting CNN and Partial Differential Equation in a Loop. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Jumper, J.; Evans, R.; Pritzel, A.; Green, T.; Figurnov, M.; Ronneberger, O.; Tunyasuvunakool, K.; Bates, R.; Z \' dek, A.; Potapenko, A.; et al. 2021. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature, 596(7873): 583--589

    2021

  12. [20]

    Khader, F.; M \"u ller-Franzes, G.; Tayebi Arasteh, S.; Han, T.; Haarburger, C.; Schulze-Hagen, M.; Schad, P.; Engelhardt, S.; Bae ler, B.; Foersch, S.; et al. 2023. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models for 3D medical image generation. Scientific Reports, 13(1): 7303

    2023

  13. [21]

    R.; Sobh, I.; Talpaert, V.; Mannion, P.; Al Sallab, A

    Kiran, B. R.; Sobh, I.; Talpaert, V.; Mannion, P.; Al Sallab, A. A.; Yogamani, S.; and P \'e rez, P. 2021. Deep reinforcement learning for autonomous driving: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(6): 4909--4926

    2021

  14. [22]

    Kumar, Y.; Koul, A.; Singla, R.; and Ijaz, M. F. 2023. Artificial intelligence in disease diagnosis: a systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda. Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing, 14(7): 8459--8486

    2023

  15. [23]

    Li, J.; Li, D.; Savarese, S.; and Hoi, S. 2023. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In International conference on machine learning, 19730--19742. PMLR

    2023

  16. [24]

    S.; and Hashimoto, T

    Li, X.; Thickstun, J.; Gulrajani, I.; Liang, P. S.; and Hashimoto, T. B. 2022. Diffusion-lm improves controllable text generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 4328--4343

    2022

  17. [25]

    Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Jin, Q.; Hu, J.; Chemerys, P.; Fu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Tulyakov, S.; and Ren, J. 2024. Snapfusion: Text-to-image diffusion model on mobile devices within two seconds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  18. [26]

    Liao, J.; Liu, Y.; Xing, G.; Wei, H.; Chen, J.; and Xu, S. 2021. Shadow detection via predicting the confidence maps of shadow detection methods. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 704--712

    2021

  19. [27]

    Lin, Y.; Theiler, J.; and Wohlberg, B. 2023. Physics-Guided Data-Driven Seismic Inversion: Recent Progress and Future Opportunities in Full Waveform Inversion. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 40: 115--133

    2023

  20. [28]

    Liu, H.; Chen, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Mei, X.; Liu, X.; Mandic, D.; Wang, W.; and Plumbley, M. D. 2023. Audioldm: Text-to-audio generation with latent diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12503

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Mak, K.-K.; Wong, Y.-H.; and Pichika, M. R. 2024. Artificial intelligence in drug discovery and development. Drug discovery and evaluation: safety and pharmacokinetic assays, 1461--1498

    2024

  22. [30]

    Mittal, G.; Engel, J.; Hawthorne, C.; and Simon, I. 2021. Symbolic music generation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.16091

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Preechakul, K.; Chatthee, N.; Wizadwongsa, S.; and Suwajanakorn, S. 2022. Diffusion autoencoders: Toward a meaningful and decodable representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10619--10629

    2022

  25. [33]

    Ramesh, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Nichol, A.; Chu, C.; and Chen, M. 2022. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 1(2): 3

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ramesh, A.; Pavlov, M.; Goh, G.; Gray, S.; Voss, C.; Radford, A.; Chen, M.; and Sutskever, I. 2021. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International conference on machine learning, 8821--8831. Pmlr

    2021

  27. [35]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10684--10695

    2022

  28. [36]

    Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; and Brox, T. 2015. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention--MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part II...

    2015

  29. [37]

    Ruiz, N.; Li, Y.; Jampani, V.; Pritch, Y.; Rubinstein, M.; and Aberman, K. 2023. 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, 22500--22510

    2023

  30. [38]

    L.; Ghasemipour, K.; Gontijo Lopes, R.; Karagol Ayan, B.; Salimans, T.; et al

    Saharia, C.; Chan, W.; Saxena, S.; Li, L.; Whang, J.; Denton, E. L.; Ghasemipour, K.; Gontijo Lopes, R.; Karagol Ayan, B.; Salimans, T.; et al. 2022. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information processing syste...

    2022

  31. [39]

    Salimans, T.; and Ho, J. 2022. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00512

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    G.; Hibi, A.; and Tyrrell, P

    Saragih, D. G.; Hibi, A.; and Tyrrell, P. N. 2024. Using diffusion models to generate synthetic labeled data for medical image segmentation. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 1--11

    2024

  33. [41]

    Shang, C.; Zhang, H.; Wen, H.; and Yang, Y. 2024. Understanding Multimodal Deep Neural Networks: A Concept Selection View. arXiv:2404.08964

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sheng, Y.; Yang, J.; Li, J.; Alaina, J.; Xu, X.; Shi, Y.; Hu, J.; Jiang, W.; and Yang, L. 2024. Data-Algorithm-Architecture Co-Optimization for Fair Neural Networks on Skin Lesion Dataset. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventio...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Singh, M.; Cambronero, J.; Gulwani, S.; Le, V.; Negreanu, C.; and Verbruggen, G. 2023. Codefusion: A pre-trained diffusion model for code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17680

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Sinha, A.; Song, J.; Meng, C.; and Ermon, S. 2021. D2c: Diffusion-decoding models for few-shot conditional generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 12533--12548

    2021

  37. [45]

    Sohl-Dickstein, J.; Weiss, E.; Maheswaranathan, N.; and Ganguli, S. 2015. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International conference on machine learning, 2256--2265. PMLR

    2015

  38. [46]

    Song, Y.; and Ermon, S. 2019. Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  39. [47]

    H.; Bai, S.; Liang, P

    Tsai, Y.-H. H.; Bai, S.; Liang, P. P.; Kolter, J. Z.; Morency, L.-P.; and Salakhutdinov, R. 2019. Multimodal transformer for unaligned multimodal language sequences. In Proceedings of the conference. Association for computational linguistics. Meeting, volume 2019, 6558. NIH Pu...

    2019

  40. [48]

    Virieux, J.; and Operto, S. 2009. An Overview of Full-waveform Inversion in Exploration Geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6): WCC1--WCC26

    2009

  41. [49]

    Wang, M.; and Deng, W. 2021. Deep face recognition: A survey. Neurocomputing, 429: 215--244

    2021

  42. [50]

    Wang, T.; Hu, X.; Wang, Q.; Heng, P.-A.; and Fu, C.-W. 2020. Instance shadow detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1880--1889

    2020

  43. [51]

    Wang, T.; Trugman, D.; and Lin, Y. 2021. SeismoGen: Seismic waveform synthesis using GAN with application to seismic data augmentation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126(4): e2020JB020077

    2021

  44. [52]

    Wu, T.; Fan, Z.; Liu, X.; Zheng, H.-T.; Gong, Y.; Jiao, J.; Li, J.; Guo, J.; Duan, N.; Chen, W.; et al. 2023. Ar-diffusion: Auto-regressive diffusion model for text generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 39957--39974

    2023

  45. [53]

    Wu, Y.; and Lin, Y. 2019. InversionNet : An Efficient and Accurate Data-Driven Full Waveform Inversion. IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging, 6: 419--433

    2019

  46. [54]

    Yang, J.; Sheng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, W.; and Yang, L. 2023. On-device unsupervised image segmentation. In 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 1--6. IEEE

    2023

  47. [55]

    Yang, J.; Wang, H.; Sheng, Y.; Lin, Y.; and Yang, L. 2024. EdGeo: A Physics-guided Generative AI Toolkit for Geophysical Monitoring on Edge Devices. In Proceedings of the 61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 1--6

    2024

  48. [56]

    Yang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Guan, Q.; and Lin, Y. 2022. Making invisible visible: Data-driven seismic inversion with spatio-temporally constrained data augmentation. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60: 1--16

    2022

  49. [57]

    Y.; Luong, T.; Baid, G.; Wang, Z.; Vasudevan, V.; Ku, A.; Yang, Y.; Ayan, B

    Yu, J.; Xu, Y.; Koh, J. Y.; Luong, T.; Baid, G.; Wang, Z.; Vasudevan, V.; Ku, A.; Yang, Y.; Ayan, B. K.; et al. 2022. Scaling autoregressive models for content-rich text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10789, 2(3): 5

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Zeng, Q.; Feng, S.; Wohlberg, B.; and Lin, Y. 2022. InversionNet3D : Efficient and Scalable Learning for 3-D Full-Waveform Inversion. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60: 1--16

    2022

  51. [59]

    Zhang, Z.; and Lin, Y. 2020. Data-driven seismic waveform inversion: A study on the robustness and generalization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote sensing, 58(10): 6900--6913

    2020

  52. [60]

    Zhou, E.; and Lee, D. 2024. Generative artificial intelligence, human creativity, and art. PNAS nexus, 3(3): pgae052

    2024

Pith tools

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