Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Structure-Preserving Zero-Shot Image Editing via Stage-Wise Latent Injection in Diffusion Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a two-stage attention-injection schedule lets a frozen diffusion model edit images without masks, fine-tuning, or user constraints.

desk verdict A plausible stage-wise attention-injection heuristic for diffusion editing, undermined by an internally contradictory schedule specification and a thin 12-image quantitative evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15723 v2 pith:GYELGO5C submitted 2025-04-22 cs.CV

Dasol Jeong , Donggoo Kang , Jiwon Park , Hyebean Lee , Joonki Paik This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords zero-shotimageeditingdiffusionmodelsDDIMinversionnull-textattentioninjectionreference-guidedtext-guidedstructurepreservation
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 is trying to establish that a single, training-free diffusion pipeline can perform both text-guided and reference-guided image editing without masks, fine-tuning, or user constraints. The key move is to partition the denoising process into an early shape-injection stage, where attention keys and values come from the source image's inverted latent (its compressed internal representation), and a later attribute-injection stage, where they come from the reference image's inverted latent. If this holds, structural preservation and attribute transfer become two phases of one process rather than competing objectives, and null-text inversion, which was limited to text prompts, gains a reference-guided counterpart.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a stage-wise latent injection schedule inside the denoising U-Net. In the shape-injection stage (early timesteps) the self-attention keys and values are the source image's inverted latents, which pins down geometry; in the attribute-injection stage (later timesteps) the keys and values become the reference image's inverted latents concatenated with the current latent, which imports fine-grained appearance. The schedule is carried by the attention formula $softmax(QK^\top/\sqrt{d})V$ and by timestep-specific null-text embeddings that serve as a structural anchor for classifier-free guidance.

What would settle it

On a fixed set of source-reference pairs, sweep the switching time $t_{\mathrm{early}}$ across all 50 DDIM steps and plot structure-preservation and attribute-transfer metrics; if the best result does not fall in the later half of the schedule, or if the quality curve is flat, the stage-wise timing claim is not load-bearing. A second decisive check is to reverse the schedule so attributes are injected early and shape late; the method should degrade markedly if the timing hypothesis is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the denoising trajectory carries structure early and attributes late, and that this ordering can be exploited by swapping which latents feed the self-attention layers. In the early timesteps, the query attends to keys and values taken from the source image's DDIM-inverted latent $z^{s*}_t$, so the edited image inherits the source layout, pose, and object shape; after a transition, the keys and values are taken from the reference image's inverted latents $z^{r*}_t$ concatenated with the current latent, so texture, expression, and style migrate onto the already-preserved layout. The method also replaces the ordinary empty prompt with timestep-specific null-text embeddings optimized for the source image, which anchor reconstruction during classifier-free guidance. The paper reports that on AFHQ dog images this schedule outperforms InjectFusion and DiffuseIT in semantic consistency and structural coherence while preserving the source's facial features, ear shapes, and pose.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that early denoising timesteps encode spatial layout and later timesteps encode fine attributes, so switching attention keys and values from the source latent to the reference latent at a fixed threshold preserves structure while transferring style; the paper never quantifies that threshold, and its prose and pseudocode disagree about whether shape injection runs on early or late timesteps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same Stable Diffusion checkpoint handles both text-guided edits (hair color, species change) and reference-guided edits (texture, expression, style) with no per-task training.
  • Editing quality is governed by injection timing: injecting attributes too early warps the layout, and injecting too late leaves the semantic change incomplete.
  • Removing Null-Text Inversion introduces distortions, and removing the two-stage injection produces inconsistent attribute blending, so both components are cast as load-bearing.
  • On the AFHQ subset, the method achieves the highest CLIP agreement with both source and reference among InjectFusion, DiffuseIT, and itself, which the paper reads as evidence of the structure-attribute balance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the paper gives no value for the switching time $t_{\mathrm{early}}$, the method is likely sensitive to that hyperparameter; a content-aware switching rule (for example, switching when the source layout has stabilized) is a natural test the paper does not run.
  • Editorial inference: the time-axis split suggests a layer-wise analogue — if early timesteps encode shape and later timesteps encode appearance, different U-Net layers may also encode them, so selective layer swapping could give finer localization than a global time threshold.
  • Editorial inference: the reported CLIP-ref gain is what the mechanism predicts, since later attention keys and values come directly from the reference latent; a per-step attribution study would separate the attention swap's contribution from null-text inversion's contribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a zero-shot image editing framework for Stable Diffusion that unifies text-guided and reference-guided edits by combining DDIM inversion, null-text inversion (NTI), and a stage-wise attention-injection schedule: source-latent keys/values are injected in early denoising steps for shape preservation, and reference-latent keys/values are injected in later steps for attribute transfer. The claimed contributions are a mask-free, fine-tuning-free pipeline and a new state-of-the-art on AFHQ relative to InjectFusion and DiffuseIT. The central load-bearing idea is the timing hypothesis that early steps control spatial structure and later steps control fine attributes.

Significance. If the stage-wise schedule were precisely defined and substantiated, the framework could be a useful zero-shot editing baseline, since it combines published components (DDIM inversion, NTI, attention injection) in a way that has not been tested in exactly this form. The qualitative figures show coherent edits, and the use of timestep-specific null embeddings is a reasonable direction. However, the manuscript currently does not define a single unambiguous method: the text, equations, and Algorithm 1 conflict on the stage order and on how injection enters the U-Net, and the quantitative evaluation is a 12-image table that does not support the stated state-of-the-art claim. I do not see a circularity problem in the derivation; the issues are under-specification, internal inconsistency, and insufficient evidence. The significance is therefore conditional on a substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2–3.3 and Algorithm 1] The stage schedule is specified contradictorily. The text assigns shape injection to t ≤ tearly (Eq. 2) and attribute injection to t > tearly (Eq. 4), while Algorithm 1 loops t = T down to 1 and applies the source-latent branch when t ≥ tearly and the reference-latent branch otherwise. Under the standard DDIM convention used in the loop, high t is the early/noisy stage, so the algorithm's source branch is the early stage; the text's inequality therefore either reverses the stages or, depending on the unreported value of tearly, labels the late stage as early. Since the stage-wise order is the paper's central contribution, this conflict makes the method undefined. In addition, tearly is never reported in §4.1 or §5.2, so the key hyperparameter of the central mechanism is absent.
  2. [Algorithm 1 and Eqs. (2)–(5)] Algorithm 1 does not implement the attention-level injection described in Eqs. (2) and (4). The pseudocode calls εθ(zt, zs*_t, ...) or εθ(zt, zr*_t, ...), but the equations define injection by replacing the keys and values inside the U-Net's self-attention, which is not expressible as an extra argument unless the internal mechanism is specified. The algorithm also computes zt−1 from εθ and then computes a separate ˜εt that is never used to update zt−1, and it introduces a mixing coefficient α that is not defined anywhere; §4.1 only reports a guidance scale m = 7. As written, the pseudocode is not executable and at least two different pipelines are consistent with the text, so the reported comparisons cannot be attributed to a specific stage-wise injection mechanism.
  3. [Table 1 and §4.4] The quantitative evidence does not support the claim that the method 'outperforms InjectFusion and DiffuseIT.' Table 1 is based on 12 images with no error bars, no per-image statistics, and no significance test. On the two Palette metrics, the proposed method is worse than DiffuseIT (Palette src 0.4846 vs 0.3425; Palette ref 1.0237 vs 0.7242) and worse than both baselines on Palette ref. The paper's own text concedes the 'marginally higher discrepancy' but then concludes an 'optimal trade-off' and state-of-the-art performance, which is not warranted by the two CLIP margins alone. Please report the full distribution, error bars, and a statistical test, or substantially temper the conclusion.
  4. [§4.1 and §5.2] The central timing hypothesis is only qualitatively justified. Section 4.1 states that settings were chosen 'after extensive empirical evaluation' but does not report tearly, α, or the search range; Section 5.2's timing ablation is purely qualitative, with example images and no quantitative metrics for structural or semantic consistency. Since the contribution is the stage-wise schedule itself, the absence of a quantitative timing study (e.g., a sweep over tearly with Palette/CLIP scores) leaves the main claim unsupported, especially because the hyperparameters appear to be tuned without a held-out protocol.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The word 'connectivity' should be 'concatenation,' and the operator ⊕ is not defined in the text.
  2. [§3.1, §3.2, §4.1] The guidance-scale notation is inconsistent: §3.1 and Eq. (3) use w and state w = 7.5, while §4.1 reports m = 7. Please unify the symbol and value.
  3. [Fig. 3] The figure contains the undefined abbreviation 'NPI' and labels that are difficult to read; please clarify.
  4. [§4.2] The dataset list includes Oxford-IIIT Pets, DreamBooth, AFHQ, CelebA, COCO, and Custom Diffusion, but the quantitative evaluation uses only 12 AFHQ images; the paper should state which dataset and images support each qualitative and quantitative result.
  5. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption mentions 'adding a hat,' but the displayed text prompts show blue hair, tiger, dog, and cat transformations; the caption should match the actual prompts.
  6. [§7] The supplementary URLs contain line breaks and spaces and should be formatted as a proper reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the main issues are an unspecified empirically tuned stage threshold and an internal schedule inconsistency, which are reproducibility concerns rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation that reduces to its own inputs. Its pipeline assembles published components (DDIM inversion, Null-Text Inversion, classifier-free guidance) with an attention-injection rule stated in Eqs. (2)-(4), and these equations are not fitted to outputs or presented as predictions generated from fitted parameters. The stage-wise 'shape-early, attribute-late' schedule is an empirical design choice, not a derived result, and the paper explicitly says the guidance scale was chosen 'after extensive empirical evaluation.' The threshold tearly is never assigned a numerical value, and Algorithm 1 and Sections 3.2-3.3 describe the early/later assignment with opposite inequalities under the DDIM loop convention; this is an internal inconsistency and reproducibility gap, but it does not make any claimed result equivalent by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no renamed known result. Baseline comparisons in Table 1 use hyperparameters selected on the evaluation images, so the empirical claims are not clean out-of-sample predictions; that is a selection-bias concern adjacent to 'fitted input called prediction,' but no specific reduction can be exhibited. Score 1 reflects that mild hyperparameter-selection proximity, not an actual circular step.

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

The method rests on Stable Diffusion as a pretrained prior, on DDIM and NTI inversion quality, on the hypothesis that early timesteps carry shape and later timesteps carry attributes, and on the assumption that replacing attention K/V with external latents produces coherent edits. The only tuned numbers are the guidance scale, the stage threshold, and the algorithm's mixing factor, none of which are justified by a validation protocol.

free parameters (3)
  • Classifier-free guidance scale w = 7.5 in Eq. (1)/(3), m=7 in Sec. 4.1
    Set after empirical evaluation; balances structure preservation against semantic change.
  • Early stage threshold tearly = not specified
    Controls when shape injection switches to attribute injection; used in Algorithm 1 but no value is reported.
  • CFG mixing coefficient alpha = not specified
    Introduced in Algorithm 1 for combining conditional and unconditional predictions, but never given a value or used in a final update equation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pretrained Stable Diffusion V1.5 is a valid image prior for real-image editing via DDIM inversion.
    The entire pipeline depends on SD1.5 and DDIM inversion mapping real images into editable latents (Sec. 3.1, Sec. 4.1).
  • domain assumption DDIM inversion approximately reproduces the source image in the latent chain.
    Standard assumption inherited from DDIM and NTI; no reconstruction error or failure cases are reported.
  • ad hoc to paper Replacing attention keys and values with source or reference latents preserves global coherence.
    Eq. (2) and Eq. (4) set K and V to source or reference latents; the paper provides no proof or analysis of why this yields coherent edits.
  • ad hoc to paper Early denoising steps determine global structure and late steps determine fine attributes.
    Central stage-wise design assumption, stated in Sec. 3.2 and 3.3 and motivated only by qualitative ablations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structure-Preserving Zero-Shot Image Editing via Stage-Wise Latent Injection in Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GYELGO5C

@misc{pith2026250415723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structure-Preserving Zero-Shot Image Editing via Stage-Wise Latent Injection in Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GYELGO5C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15723}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a diffusion-based framework for zero-shot image editing that unifies text-guided and reference-guided approaches without requiring fine-tuning. Our method leverages diffusion inversion and timestep-specific null-text embeddings to preserve the structural integrity of the source image. By introducing a stage-wise latent injection strategy-shape injection in early steps and attribute injection in later steps-we enable precise, fine-grained modifications while maintaining global consistency. Cross-attention with reference latents facilitates semantic alignment between the source and reference. Extensive experiments across expression transfer, texture transformation, and style infusion demonstrate state-of-the-art performance, confirming the method's scalability and adaptability to diverse image editing scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15723 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of reference-guided image editing using the pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Inversion process for source and reference images. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An overview of the proposed zero-shot image editing framework. The process begins with DDIM inversion of the source image to extract its latent representation z s∗ t and optimize null embeddings ∅ for structural preservation. Text embeddings P and reference image latents z r∗ t guide the denoising U-Net during the editing process. The framework incorporates shape injection during early timesteps to maintain structur… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The outputs show that when the source image is fixed, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of generated results across different methods on the AFHQ dataset. The first and second column contains the source and reference images. The subsequent columns display outputs from (left to right) Ours, InjectFusion, and DiffuseIT [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of text-guided image editing using the pro￾posed method. The framework seamlessly integrates semantic modifications (e.g., adding a hat, changing hair color, or trans￾forming species) based on text prompts, while preserving the structural and stylistic attribut…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: When Null-Text Inversion is removed, the model strug￾gles to maintain the structural integrity of the source image. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effect of attribute injection timing in text-guided im￾age editing. When injection occurs too early, the structural in￾tegrity of the source image is lost, leading to distortions. When applied too late, the semantic transformation is incomplete. Our approach optimally …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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 Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 18208–18218, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  2. [2]

    Masactrl: Tuning-free mu- tual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing

    Mingdeng Cao, Xintao Wang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, Xi- aohu Qie, and Yinqiang Zheng. Masactrl: Tuning-free mu- tual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 22560–22570, 2023. 1

    2023

  3. [3]

    Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server

    Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedan- tam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Doll ´ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00325, 2015. 5

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Stargan v2: Diverse image synthesis for multiple domains

    Yunjey Choi, Youngjung Uh, Jaejun Yoo, and Jung-Woo Ha. Stargan v2: Diverse image synthesis for multiple domains. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020. 2, 5

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 34:8780–8794, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  6. [6]

    Drea- martist: Towards controllable one-shot text-to-image gen- eration via positive-negative prompt-tuning

    Ziyi Dong, Pengxu Wei, and Liang Lin. Drea- martist: Towards controllable one-shot text-to-image gen- eration via positive-negative prompt-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11337, 2022. 1, 2

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Di- rect inversion: Optimization-free text-driven real image edit- 8 ing with diffusion models

    Adham Elarabawy, Harish Kamath, and Samuel Denton. Di- rect inversion: Optimization-free text-driven real image edit- 8 ing with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07825,

    arXiv

  8. [8]

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

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patash- nik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen- Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022. 1, 2

    arXiv 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Proxedit: Improving tuning-free real image editing with proximal guidance

    Ligong Han, Song Wen, Qi Chen, Zhixing Zhang, Kunpeng Song, Mengwei Ren, Ruijiang Gao, Anastasis Stathopou- los, Xiaoxiao He, Yuxiao Chen, et al. Proxedit: Improving tuning-free real image editing with proximal guidance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Appl...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022. 1, 2

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 3, 5

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 2

    2020

  5. [13]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. 1

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Appli- cations of Computer Vision , pages 5151–5161, 2024. 2, 5, 6

    2024

  7. [15]

    Diffu- sionclip: Text-guided diffusion models for robust image ma- nipulation

    Gwanghyun Kim, Taesung Kwon, and Jong Chul Ye. Diffu- sionclip: Text-guided diffusion models for robust image ma- nipulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2426–2435,

  8. [16]

    Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion

    Nupur Kumari, Bingliang Zhang, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1931–1941, 2023. 5

    1931

  9. [17]

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

    Gihyun Kwon and Jong Chul Ye. Diffusion-based image translation using disentangled style and content representa- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15264, 2022. 2, 5, 6

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Deep learning face attributes in the wild

    Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015. 5

    2015

  11. [19]

    Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jia- jun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 1, 2

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Negative-prompt inversion: Fast image inversion for editing with text-guided diffusion models

    Daiki Miyake, Akihiro Iohara, Yu Saito, and Toshiyuki Tanaka. Negative-prompt inversion: Fast image inversion for editing with text-guided diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16807, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

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

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6038–6047, 2023. 1, 2, 3

    2023

  14. [22]

    Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741, 2021

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741, 2021. 1, 2

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Parkhi, Andrea Vedaldi, Andrew Zisserman, and C

    Omkar M. Parkhi, Andrea Vedaldi, Andrew Zisserman, and C. V . Jawahar. Cats and dogs. InIEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2012. 2, 5

    2012

  16. [24]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  18. [26]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 5

    2022

  19. [27]

    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, pages 22500...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Image super- resolution via iterative refinement

    Chitwan Saharia, Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Tim Sali- mans, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Image super- resolution via iterative refinement. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 45(4):4713–4726,

  21. [29]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 1, 2, 3

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020. 2, 3

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 3

    2017

  24. [32]

    A latent space of stochastic diffusion models for zero-shot image editing and guidance

    Chen Henry Wu and Fernando De la Torre. A latent space of stochastic diffusion models for zero-shot image editing and guidance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7378–7387, 2023. 2

    2023

  25. [33]

    Diffi2i: Efficient diffusion model for image- to-image translation

    Bin Xia, Yulun Zhang, Shiyin Wang, Yitong Wang, Xing- long Wu, Yapeng Tian, Wenming Yang, Radu Timotfe, and 9 Luc Van Gool. Diffi2i: Efficient diffusion model for image- to-image translation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024. 2

    2024

  26. [34]

    Real- world image variation by aligning diffusion inversion chain

    Yuechen Zhang, Jinbo Xing, Eric Lo, and Jiaya Jia. Real- world image variation by aligning diffusion inversion chain. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.