Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

StyleSSP: Sampling StartPoint Enhancement for Training-free Diffusion-based Method for Style Transfer

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 StyleSSP shows that improving the DDIM sampling startpoint—by reducing low-frequency latent components and applying negative guidance during inversion—simultaneously preserves original content and prevents style-image content leakage in…

desk verdict Solid empirical paper on startpoint enhancement for training-free style transfer, but the frequency-manipulation story is under-supported and the evaluation needs error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11319 v2 pith:F4IZID7G submitted 2025-01-20 cs.CV

Ruojun Xu , Weijie Xi , Xiaodi Wang , Yongbo Mao , Zach Cheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords styletransfertraining-freediffusionsamplingstartpointDDIMinversionfrequencymanipulationnegativeguidancecontentleakagelatent
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

StyleSSP claims that the sampling startpoint, the DDIM-inverted latent that seeds the diffusion sampling stage, is the main control knob for fixing two failure modes of training-free style transfer: drift of the original content's layout and leakage of the style image's content. The method improves the startpoint in two ways: it attenuates the low-frequency components of the latent so the sampler pays more attention to layout-bearing high-frequency detail, and it applies negative guidance during DDIM inversion so the startpoint starts away from the style image's content. On a standard 800-pair content-style benchmark, the resulting ArtFID of 21.499, FID of 13.448, and LPIPS of 0.4881 are the best reported among the training-free baselines compared, and a user study agrees. If this is right, high-quality style transfer can be improved without fine-tuning the diffusion model at all.

What carries the argument

Key machinery is the sampling startpoint, the DDIM latent $z_T^c$ derived from the content image by inversion. StyleSSP reshapes this startpoint with (1) frequency manipulation: a Fourier-domain low-pass filter $\mathcal{L}_r$ and its complement high-pass $\mathcal{H}_r=1-\mathcal{L}_r$, reducing low-frequency components by factor $\alpha$ and adding Gaussian noise scaled by $1-\alpha$; and (2) negative guidance via inversion: replacing the plain DDIM-inversion noise prediction with $\hat{\epsilon}_\theta(z_t,t,C_+,E_-)$, where $E_-$ combines the style embedding of the content image and the content embedding of the style image from IP-Instruct. The two operations act on the same seed, so a single startpoint carries both the layout information and the desired distance from style content.

What would settle it

Take a fixed content-style pair and run StyleSSP twice: once with the usual DDIM-inverted startpoint and once starting from random Gaussian noise of the same scale, keeping frequency manipulation, negative guidance, ControlNet, and style injection otherwise identical. If the frequency-manipulated random-start generation preserves content as well as the inverted one, the frequency-layout mechanism does not require the inversion trajectory; if it collapses, the claimed startpoint effect is inseparable from DDIM inversion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Through startpoint enhancement, both content preservation and prevention of style content leakage can be achieved in a training-free diffusion pipeline. The paper demonstrates that the DDIM latent $z_T$ obtained by inverting the content image is not just a noise initialization: its frequency content and its distance from the style image's content both shape the output. Reducing low-frequency components of $z_T$ by factor $\alpha$ ($z_T^{c,\prime} = z_T^{c,L,\alpha} + \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)(1-\alpha)$) makes the reconstruction preserve layout and details; applying negative guidance during inversion with embeddings $E_- = \mathrm{concat}(\Phi(I^c)^s, \Phi(I^s)^c)$ keeps the resulting startpoint away from the style image's content and prevents leakage. The paper argues this works where ordinary negative prompt guidance fails because text cannot fully capture style or content, and where sampling-stage negative guidance fails because multi-condition control is fragile. The full StyleSSP pipeline, which also injects style only into style-specific U-Net blocks and uses ControlNet for content, achieves the best ArtFID, FID, and LPIPS among the compared training-free methods.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that attenuating low frequencies of the inverted DDIM latent preserves layout and detail in the full style-transfer pipeline, even though ControlNet and style injection are already constraining the generation, so the added noise and filtering do not corrupt the content instead.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the startpoint is the main lever, training-free style transfer can be improved by startpoint shaping alone; no U-Net fine-tuning or additional training data are required.
  • The user can dial content preservation against style strength: lowering $\alpha$ sharpens layout contours, and raising the negative-guidance scale $\omega_i$ reduces style-content leakage.
  • Because negative guidance is applied during inversion rather than sampling, it avoids the multi-condition control failures that ordinary sampling-stage or text-prompt negative guidance exhibits.
  • The reported scores on the 800-pair benchmark, ArtFID 21.499, FID 13.448, and LPIPS 0.4881, rank above all compared training-free methods, so the startpoint explanation predicts the same ranking if the benchmark is re-run.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same startpoint-shaping recipe could be tested in other editing tasks that use inversion, such as object replacement or local editing, since the claimed mechanism does not depend on style-specific training.
  • The negative-guidance module is explicitly portable: the paper notes IP-Instruct can be replaced by any extractor, so a natural extension is to swap in CLIP or text-only negative prompts and compare leakage reduction.
  • The frequency-layout link was verified on reconstruction only; a direct transfer test would check whether low-frequency attenuation applied to a random, non-inverted noise latent gives the same content-preservation benefit, isolating the startpoint mechanism from the inversion trajectory.
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 StyleSSP, a training-free diffusion-based style transfer method that operates by modifying the DDIM inversion latent (the 'startpoint' of the sampling stage). Two mechanisms are introduced: frequency manipulation, which attenuates low-frequency components of the latent and adds Gaussian noise scaled by (1−α), and negative guidance during inversion, which uses IP-Instruct embeddings to distance the startpoint from the content of the style image. The method is evaluated on 800 MS-COCO/WikiArt image pairs, with quantitative comparisons in ArtFID, FID, and LPIPS against several training-free baselines (StyleID, InstantStyle, InstantStyle plus, StyleAlign, DiffuseIT, DiffStyle) and the optimization-based InST. The paper reports state-of-the-art results, supporting ablations, qualitative figures, and a user study in the supplementary material.

Significance. If the reported gains are reliable, StyleSSP provides a simple, training-free improvement to style transfer that addresses two known failure modes: content layout changes and content leakage from the style image. The startpoint-manipulation perspective is a useful and under-explored direction, and the paper presents a clear pipeline with extensive qualitative evidence and a public project page. The method is plausible and the empirical results are promising. However, the central mechanistic claim for the frequency manipulation is currently under-supported because the ablation conflates two interventions, and the quantitative comparisons lack statistical confidence measures.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (9)] The manipulated startpoint in Eq. (9) applies two simultaneous interventions: attenuation of low-frequency components by α and addition of Gaussian noise of magnitude (1−α). These are never ablated separately. The reconstruction experiments in Sec. 3.2 and Fig. 3 use z^{L,α}_T without the noise term, while the full-pipeline ablation '+FM' in Table 2 changes both the spectrum and the injected noise. Consequently, the observed improvement in LPIPS (0.5509 to 0.4973) and FID (16.205 to 15.103) cannot be attributed specifically to low-frequency attenuation; it may be driven by the added high-frequency noise or by an interaction between the two terms. Because the paper's stated mechanism is that reducing low-frequency components preserves layout, this confound is load-bearing. Please provide an ablation that varies the attenuation factor and the noise magnitude independently, and report the corresponding metrics.
  2. [Sec. 5.3, Table 1 and Sec. 5.4, Table 2] All quantitative results are reported as point estimates with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The central claim that StyleSSP outperforms prior training-free methods rests on differences that are sometimes very small (e.g., Table 2: '+NG' changes ArtFID from 26.683 to 26.542 and LPIPS from 0.5509 to 0.5496). Given that FID and ArtFID are computed on 800 generated images, the estimates are likely to have substantial variance. Please report results over multiple random seeds or using bootstrap resampling, and provide significance tests for the key comparisons in Table 1 and Table 2 to establish that the differences are not noise.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (11)] The paper uses E− = concat(Φ(I_c)_s, Φ(I_s)_c) as a 'negative condition' in a CFG-style extrapolation. However, it is not explained how the IP-Instruct image embedding is integrated with the U-Net conditioning, and the theoretical justification for applying CFG with an image-based condition is not given. Moreover, the two components of E− are never ablated separately, so it is unclear whether distanc-ing from the style image's content or from the content image's style is the effective factor. Please clarify the conditioning mechanism and provide an ablation that isolates Φ(I_s)_c and Φ(I_c)_s.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 5.1] The symbol σ is used both for the Gaussian filter parameter and for the standard deviation of the added noise in Eq. (9). Sec. 5.1 states 'variance σ equal to 0.3,' which conflicts with the N(0, σ²) notation in Eq. (9). Please disambiguate these two parameters (e.g., σ_filter and σ_noise) for reproducibility.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (5)–(6)] The low-pass filter L_r is mentioned as Gaussian, Butterworth, or Chebyshev, but its exact construction (e.g., cutoff frequency or kernel size) is not specified. Please provide the filter definition or a reference to the exact implementation used.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The notation Φ(I_c)_s and Φ(I_s)_c assumes that the IP-Instruct model can output separate style and content embeddings for an image. Please state explicitly how these are obtained (e.g., by using different instruction prompts) and cite the relevant details of IP-Instruct.
  4. [Sec. 5.4, Table 2] The 'Baseline' configuration is not fully defined in the main text. It would be helpful to state explicitly that the baseline already includes ControlNet and the InstantStyle-style injection, so readers can understand what the ablation steps add.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The claim to be 'the first to highlight the importance of the startpoint in style transfer' is strong given that StyleID (cited as [4]) already rescales the startpoint. Please soften this claim or add a precise distinction from prior startpoint modifications.
  6. [Sec. 5.3, Table 1] The wording 'FID assesses the style fidelity between the stylized image and the corresponding style image' is ambiguous; FID is a set-level distribution distance. Please clarify whether the reported FID is computed between the 800-image set of stylized outputs and the 800-image set of style inputs, and cite the standard practice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are empirical benchmark measurements, there are no author-overlap self-citations, and Eq. 9's manipulated startpoint does not determine the output metric by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: Table 1 and Table 2 report ArtFID, FID, and LPIPS measured on 800 MS-COCO/WikiArt pairs against external baselines, and none of these quantities appears in the method's construction equations (Eqs. 5-11) as a term minimized by definition. The frequency-manipulation startpoint zc,′T = zc,L,α_T + N(0,σ2)·(1−α) (Eq. 9) defines an input to the sampler; the quality of the final output is measured after DDIM sampling with style injection and ControlNet, not derived from the equation, so the reported improvement is not equivalent to the construction. The paper contains no self-citations: none of the cited works (StyleID, FlexiEdit, InstantStyle, IP-Instruct, ControlNet, SDXL, etc.) shares an author with the present five authors, so there is no self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in from the authors' own prior work. The frequency-layout hypothesis is attributed to the external, independent FlexiEdit paper and is additionally probed in the paper's own reconstruction experiments (Sec. 3.2, Fig. 3), which do not use the paper's success criterion as their measure. The main weakness is that Eq. 9 couples low-frequency attenuation (factor α) with additive Gaussian noise scaled by 1−α, while the Fig. 3 reconstructions show only the attenuated latent without the noise term; consequently the '+FM' ablation in Table 2 cannot cleanly attribute the improvement to low-frequency attenuation rather than to the added noise or their interaction. That is an attribution/rigor gap about the mechanism, not circularity, because the benchmark numbers are empirical facts that are not forced by the construction. The novelty claim of being 'first to highlight the importance of the startpoint' is contestable given StyleID's acknowledged startpoint rescaling, but an overclaim of priority is likewise not a circular-reasoning defect.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. The central claim rests on two heuristic assumptions about the startpoint (frequency-layout relationship and inversion-stage negative guidance), plus the independence assumption in the negative-guidance derivation and the compatibility of external pre-trained models. These are itemized below.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha = 0.7
    Frequency manipulation ratio; reduces low-frequency components of the DDIM latent. Chosen by qualitative inspection in Sec 5.5 / Fig 9; affects content preservation and contour sharpness.
  • sigma = 0.3
    Variance of the Gaussian low-pass filter in frequency manipulation; recommended range 0.3 to 0.5 in Supplementary Sec 7.3.
  • omega_i = 1.5
    Negative guidance scale during DDIM inversion; chosen by qualitative inspection in Sec 5.5 / Fig 9; controls degree of content-leakage removal.
  • CFG scale = 5.0
    Classifier-free guidance scale for the sampling stage; standard for SDXL, chosen by hand, and not unique to the method.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The DDIM inversion trajectory [z*_t] provides a valid startpoint zT for sampling such that sampling from zT preserves content.
    The method's first step inverts the content image into zc_T (Eq 8) and later samples from a modified version; this requires the ODE inversion to be accurate enough in SDXL latent space. Standard assumption in DDIM inversion works, but it is not proven for the modified latent.
  • ad hoc to paper Reducing low-frequency components of zT while adding Gaussian noise (Eq 9) yields a startpoint whose samples better preserve layout.
    Based on reconstruction experiments (Sec 3.2, Fig 3) and FlexiEdit; this frequency-layout association is assumed to transfer to the style-transfer pipeline.
  • ad hoc to paper Using E- = concat(Phi(I_c)_s, Phi(I_s)_c) as the negative condition in Eq 11 distances the latent from the style image's content without degrading the content of I_c.
    No theoretical justification is given; the paper demonstrates this only through specific examples (Fig 5, Fig 8).
  • domain assumption The independence assumption between x, y, and not-y in the negative-guidance derivation (Eq 16-17 of the supplementary) is acceptable.
    The authors explicitly state this assumption; it is a known simplification in classifier-free guidance and may not hold in general.
  • domain assumption Pre-trained SDXL, ControlNet-tile, IP-Instruct, BLIP, and CLIP models are compatible and their embeddings stay on-manifold when concatenated into E-.
    Method uses external models without fine-tuning; the negative guidance assumes the IP-Instruct embeddings can be injected into the cross-attention condition space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of StyleSSP: Sampling StartPoint Enhancement for Training-free Diffusion-based Method for Style Transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4IZID7G

@misc{pith2026250111319,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: StyleSSP: Sampling StartPoint Enhancement for Training-free Diffusion-based Method for Style Transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4IZID7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11319}
}
read the original abstract

Training-free diffusion-based methods have achieved remarkable success in style transfer, eliminating the need for extensive training or fine-tuning. However, due to the lack of targeted training for style information extraction and constraints on the content image layout, training-free methods often suffer from layout changes of original content and content leakage from style images. Through a series of experiments, we discovered that an effective startpoint in the sampling stage significantly enhances the style transfer process. Based on this discovery, we propose StyleSSP, which focuses on obtaining a better startpoint to address layout changes of original content and content leakage from style image. StyleSSP comprises two key components: (1) Frequency Manipulation: To improve content preservation, we reduce the low-frequency components of the DDIM latent, allowing the sampling stage to pay more attention to the layout of content images; and (2) Negative Guidance via Inversion: To mitigate the content leakage from style image, we employ negative guidance in the inversion stage to ensure that the startpoint of the sampling stage is distanced from the content of style image. Experiments show that StyleSSP surpasses previous training-free style transfer baselines, particularly in preserving original content and minimizing the content leakage from style image. Project page: https://github.com/bytedance/StyleSSP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11319 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Current problems for style transfer and our improvements. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall Framework. (Left) Illustration of the proposed style transfer method. First, we invert the content image I c into the latent noise space as z c T . During this process, we use negative guidance (Sec. 4.2) to ensure that z c T diverges from the content information of the style image. We then apply frequency manipulation (Sec. 4.1) to z c T , obtaining a low-frequency reduced latent z c, ′ T as the startpoint … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Style transfer results wi/o frequency manipulation, rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrations of negative guidance via inversion, negative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Style transfer results of style and content image pairs. Zoom in for better visualization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison with previous work. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of the effects of negative guidance scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparison with ablation studies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustrations of style transfer results based on various startpoints. As shown in this figure, startpoint manipulations yield [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results for the user study in percentages. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visualization of frequency pass parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Frequency spectrum distribution of 20 random images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Qualitative comparison with with baselines(StyleID, InstantStyle plus). Zoom in for viewing details. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Style transfer results of style and content image pairs. Zoom in for viewing details. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. PoseAlign: Sculpting Pose-Consistent Meshes via Text-Guided Deformation

    cs.GR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Two-stage text-guided mesh deformation (Laplacian CLIP scaling + attention-shared SDS Jacobian sculpting) better preserves source pose while aligning to text than TextDeformer or MeshUp.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Re-imagine the negative prompt algorithm: Transform 2d diffusion into 3d, alleviate janus problem and beyond, 2023

    Mohammadreza Armandpour, Ali Sadeghian, Huangjie Zheng, Amir Sadeghian, and Mingyuan Zhou. Re-imagine the negative prompt algorithm: Transform 2d diffusion into 3d, alleviate janus problem and beyond, 2023. 5

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

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

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

  3. [3]

    iedit: Localised text-guided image editing with weak supervision

    Rumeysa Bodur, Erhan Gundogdu, Binod Bhattarai, Tae- Kyun Kim, Michael Donoser, and Loris Bazzani. iedit: Localised text-guided image editing with weak supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops , pages 7426–7435, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    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 (CVPR), pages 8795–8805, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Efros and William T

    Alexei A. Efros and William T. Freeman. Image quilting for texture synthesis and transfer. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, page 341–346, New York, NY , USA, 2001. As- sociation for Computing Machinery. 3

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Gatys, Alexander S

    Leon A. Gatys, Alexander S. Ecker, and Matthias Bethge. Texture synthesis using convolutional neural networks, 2015. 3

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Instructdiffusion: A generalist modeling interface for vision tasks

    Zigang Geng, Binxin Yang, Tiankai Hang, Chen Li, Shuyang Gu, Ting Zhang, Jianmin Bao, Zheng Zhang, Han Hu, Dong Chen, and Baining Guo. Instructdiffusion: A generalist modeling interface for vision tasks. CoRR, abs/2309.03895,

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Instructdiffu- sion: A generalist modeling interface for vision tasks

    Zigang Geng, Binxin Yang, Tiankai Hang, Chen Li, Shuyang Gu, Ting Zhang, Jianmin Bao, Zheng Zhang, Houqiang Li, Han Hu, Dong Chen, and Baining Guo. Instructdiffu- sion: A generalist modeling interface for vision tasks. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12709–12720, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Emma: Your text-to-image diffusion model can secretly accept multi-modal prompts,

    Yucheng Han, Rui Wang, Chi Zhang, Juntao Hu, Pei Cheng, Bin Fu, and Hanwang Zhang. Emma: Your text-to-image diffusion model can secretly accept multi-modal prompts,

  2. [10]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. ArXiv, abs/2207.12598, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Image-to-image translation with conditional adver- sarial networks

    Phillip Isola, Jun-Yan Zhu, Tinghui Zhou, and Alexei A Efros. Image-to-image translation with conditional adver- sarial networks. CVPR, 2017. 3

    2017

  4. [12]

    Training- free content injection using h-space in diffusion models,

    Jaeseok Jeong, Mingi Kwon, and Youngjung Uh. Training- free content injection using h-space in diffusion models,

  5. [13]

    Brushnet: A plug-and-play image inpainting model with decomposed dual-branch diffusion, 2024

    Xuan Ju, Xian Liu, Xintao Wang, Yuxuan Bian, Ying Shan, and Qiang Xu. Brushnet: A plug-and-play image inpainting model with decomposed dual-branch diffusion, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  6. [14]

    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. InCon- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2023 ,

    2023

  7. [15]

    Style transfer by relaxed optimal transport and self- similarity, 2019

    Nicholas Kolkin, Jason Salavon, and Greg Shakhnarovich. Style transfer by relaxed optimal transport and self- similarity, 2019. 3

    2019

  8. [16]

    Flexiedit: Frequency-aware latent refinement for en- hanced non-rigid editing

    Gwanhyeong Koo, Sunjae Yoon, Ji Woo Hong, and Chang D Yoo. Flexiedit: Frequency-aware latent refinement for en- hanced non-rigid editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17850,

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Diffusion-based image translation using disentangled style and content representa- tion, 2023

    Gihyun Kwon and Jong Chul Ye. Diffusion-based image translation using disentangled style and content representa- tion, 2023. 6, 1

    2023

  10. [18]

    Dongxu Li, Junnan Li, and Steven C. H. Hoi. Blip-diffusion: Pre-trained subject representation for controllable text-to- image generation and editing, 2023. 3

    2023

  11. [19]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation, 2022

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation, 2022. 5

    2022

  12. [20]

    Styledif- fusion: Prompt-embedding inversion for text-based editing

    Senmao Li, Joost van de Weijer, Taihang Hu, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Qibin Hou, Yaxing Wang, and Jian Yang. Styledif- fusion: Prompt-embedding inversion for text-based editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15649, 2023. 1, 3, 6

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Moecon- troller: Instruction-based arbitrary image manipulation with mixture-of-expert controllers, 2024

    Sijia Li, Chen Chen, and Haonan Lu. Moecon- troller: Instruction-based arbitrary image manipulation with mixture-of-expert controllers, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  14. [22]

    Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Doll ´ar

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, Lubomir Bourdev, Ross Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Doll ´ar. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context, 2015. 6

    2015

  15. [23]

    Understanding deep image representations by inverting them, 2014

    Aravindh Mahendran and Andrea Vedaldi. Understanding deep image representations by inverting them, 2014. 6

    2014

  16. [24]

    A common framework for interactive texture trans- fer

    Yifang Men, Zhouhui Lian, Yingmin Tang, and Jianguo Xiao. A common framework for interactive texture trans- fer. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6353–6362, 2018. 3

    2018

  17. [25]

    Conditional generative adversarial nets

    Mehdi Mirza and Simon Osindero. Conditional generative adversarial nets. CoRR, abs/1411.1784, 2014. 3 9

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models, 2022

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models, 2022. 1

    2022

  19. [27]

    Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models, 2022

    Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models, 2022. 1

    2022

  20. [28]

    Stable diffusion 1 vs 2: What you need to know

    Ryan O’Connor. Stable diffusion 1 vs 2: What you need to know. https://www.assemblyai.com/blog/ stable- diffusion- 1- vs- 2- what- you- need- to-know, 2023. 2, 5

    2023

  21. [29]

    Arbitrary style trans- fer with style-attentional networks, 2019

    Dae Young Park and Kwang Hee Lee. Arbitrary style trans- fer with style-attentional networks, 2019. 3

    2019

  22. [30]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023. 4, 6

    2023

  23. [31]

    Deadiff: An efficient stylization diffusion model with disen- tangled representations

    Tianhao Qi, Shancheng Fang, Yanze Wu, Hongtao Xie, Jiawei Liu, Lang Chen, Qian He, and Yongdong Zhang. Deadiff: An efficient stylization diffusion model with disen- tangled representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06951 ,

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Freenoise: Tuning-free longer video diffusion via noise rescheduling, 2024

    Haonan Qiu, Menghan Xia, Yong Zhang, Yingqing He, Xin- tao Wang, Ying Shan, and Ziwei Liu. Freenoise: Tuning-free longer video diffusion via noise rescheduling, 2024. 2

    2024

  25. [33]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021. 3

    2021

  26. [34]

    Liu, Ron J

    Colin Raffel, Minh-Thang Luong, Peter J. Liu, Ron J. Weiss, and Douglas Eck. Online and linear-time attention by en- forcing monotonic alignments, 2017. 3

    2017

  27. [35]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents, 2022

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents, 2022. 6

    2022

  28. [36]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents, 2022

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents, 2022. 3

    2022

  29. [37]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models, 2021

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models, 2021. 1

    2021

  30. [38]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models, 2022

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models, 2022. 3

    2022

  31. [39]

    Ipadapter- instruct: Resolving ambiguity in image-based conditioning using instruct prompts, 2024

    Ciara Rowles, Shimon Vainer, Dante De Nigris, Slava Elizarov, Konstantin Kutsy, and Simon Donn ´e. Ipadapter- instruct: Resolving ambiguity in image-based conditioning using instruct prompts, 2024. 2, 5

    2024

  32. [40]

    Sara Mahdavi, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Burcu Karagol Ayan, S. Sara Mahdavi, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion mod...

    2022

  33. [41]

    pytorch-fid: FID Score for PyTorch

    Maximilian Seitzer. pytorch-fid: FID Score for PyTorch. https://github.com/mseitzer/pytorch-fid ,

  34. [42]

    Weiss, Niru Mah- eswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A. Weiss, Niru Mah- eswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. CoRR, abs/1503.03585, 2015. 3

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Denois- ing diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denois- ing diffusion implicit models. arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 3

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Improved artgan for conditional synthesis of natural image and artwork, 2018

    Wei Ren Tan, Chee Seng Chan, Hernan Aguirre, and Kiyoshi Tanaka. Improved artgan for conditional synthesis of natural image and artwork, 2018. 6

    2018

  37. [45]

    Instantstyle: Free lunch towards style- preserving in text-to-image generation

    Haofan Wang, Qixun Wang, Xu Bai, Zekui Qin, and Anthony Chen. Instantstyle: Free lunch towards style- preserving in text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02733, 2024. 1, 3, 6

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Instantstyle-plus: Style transfer with content-preserving in text-to-image generation

    Haofan Wang, Peng Xing, Renyuan Huang, Hao Ai, Qixun Wang, and Xu Bai. Instantstyle-plus: Style transfer with content-preserving in text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00788, 2024. 1, 3, 6

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Stable diffusion 2.0 and the importance of neg- ative prompts for good results

    Max Woolf. Stable diffusion 2.0 and the importance of neg- ative prompts for good results. https://minimaxir. com / 2022 / 11 / stable - diffusion - negative - prompt/, 2023. 5

    2022

  40. [48]

    Artfid: Quantitative evaluation of neural style transfer

    Matthias Wright and Bj ¨orn Ommer. Artfid: Quantitative evaluation of neural style transfer. GCPR, 2022. 6

    2022

  41. [49]

    Stylealign: Analysis and applications of aligned stylegan models

    Zongze Wu, Yotam Nitzan, Eli Shechtman, and Dani Lischinski. Stylealign: Analysis and applications of aligned stylegan models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11323, 2021. 1

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Freetuner: Any subject in any style with training-free diffu- sion, 2024

    Youcan Xu, Zhen Wang, Jun Xiao, Wei Liu, and Long Chen. Freetuner: Any subject in any style with training-free diffu- sion, 2024. 3

    2024

  43. [51]

    Ip- adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to- image diffusion models, 2023

    Hu Ye, Jun Zhang, Sibo Liu, Xiao Han, and Wei Yang. Ip- adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to- image diffusion models, 2023. 3

    2023

  44. [52]

    How transferable are features in deep neural networks?,

    Jason Yosinski, Jeff Clune, Yoshua Bengio, and Hod Lip- son. How transferable are features in deep neural networks?,

  45. [53]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models, 2023

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models, 2023. 1, 3, 6

    2023

  46. [54]

    Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric, 2018. 6

    2018

  47. [55]

    Inversion-based style transfer with diffusion models

    Yuxin Zhang, Nisha Huang, Fan Tang, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, Weiming Dong, and Changsheng Xu. Inversion-based style transfer with diffusion models. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10146–10156, 2023. 1, 3, 4, 6

    2023

  48. [56]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle- consistent adversarial networkss

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle- consistent adversarial networkss. In Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017 IEEE International Conference on, 2017. 3 10 StyleSSP: Sampling StartPoint Enhancement for Training-...

    2017

  49. [57]

    wi Inversion,

    Appendix 7.1. Startpoint Impact Analysis Given that StyleSSP is specifically designed to enhance the sam- pling startpoint, we place primary emphasis on the importance of the startpoint in style transfer. We demonstrate how minor modi- fications to the startpoint can significa...

Pith tools

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