Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Guiding Diffusion with Deep Geometric Moments: Balancing Fidelity and Variation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep Geometric Moments, a training-free feature loss, balance subject fidelity and output diversity in diffusion generation.

desk verdict A reasonable training-free application of DGM features to diffusion guidance, but the 'balance' claim is not yet supported by the experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12486 v1 pith:4DBX4GEK submitted 2025-05-18 cs.CV

Sangmin Jung , Utkarsh Nath , Yezhou Yang , Giulia Pedrielli , Joydeep Biswas , Amy Zhang , Hassan Ghasemzadeh , Pavan Turaga This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords DeepGeometricMomentsdiffusionguidancetraining-freefidelity-diversitytrade-offsubjectidentitypreservationtext-to-imagegenerationUniversalI-DINO
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 introduces Deep Geometric Moments (DGM) as a training-free guidance signal for text-to-image diffusion models. The central claim is that matching DGM features of the reference subject during sampling preserves the subject's fine-grained visual identity while leaving pose, composition, and other spatial details free to vary, so the generated set stays diverse. In their benchmark, the method reports CLIP-I 0.8323 and I-DINO 0.2754, which they label "balanced," whereas DINO guidance gives higher fidelity but stagnates at 0.1682 and CLIP guidance diverges at 0.4787. The claim matters because it points to a middle path between rigid spatial conditioning and loose semantic alignment.

What carries the argument

The central object is Deep Geometric Moments, a feature representation that computes moments $M_{p,q} = \iint x^{p} y^{q} f(x,y)\,dx\,dy$ through learned deep-network hierarchies, making it robust to scale, rotation, and appearance. The carrying mechanism is gradient guidance on a clean-image estimate: using the DDIM reconstruction $\hat z_0 = (z_t - \sqrt{1-\alpha_t}\,\epsilon_\theta(z_t,t))/\sqrt{\alpha_t}$, the loss $\ell = \mathrm{MSE}(f(z_{\mathrm{ref}}), f(\hat z_0))$ is differentiated with respect to $z_t$ and added to the noise prediction with a time-dependent scale. The paper's I-DINO metric, $1 - \text{mean pairwise DINO similarity}$, carries the diversity half of the claim.

What would settle it

The balance claim is testable by fixing CLIP-I at the reported level and asking human or automated raters to choose which guidance method produces the preferred output set. Concretely, one can run the same DGMBench subjects through DGM guidance at several guidance scales, plot I-DINO against CLIP-I, and check whether the DGM point lies above the curve traced by DINO and CLIP at matched fidelity. If DINO at a lowered guidance scale reaches equal diversity without losing fidelity, the claim that DGM uniquely balances the two would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the feature representation used for guidance determines where a method lands on the fidelity-diversity axis. Deep Geometric Moments encode a subject through learned moment projections rather than global semantics or patch-wise matching, so the gradient from an MSE loss between reference and generated DGM features steers generation toward the subject's textures and inner details without committing to a fixed layout. The authors implement this inside the Universal Guidance sampler: at each step they estimate the clean image $\hat z_0$ via DDIM, compute the DGM feature loss, add its scaled gradient to the noise prediction, and repeat with reinjected noise. The result is a training-free method whose reported outputs preserve identity while remaining variable, in contrast to DINO's near-replication, CLIP's semantic drift, and the spatial rigidity of segmentation and depth controls.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on accepting that an I-DINO value around 0.2754 is the correct balance point and that 0.2754 is meaningfully different from DINO's 0.1682; the paper states this threshold only in the table caption and reports no error bars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DGM guidance works without retraining and with any prompt, so users can change the text description while keeping the subject's texture and fine details.
  • Because the guidance signal is scale-, rotation-, and appearance-robust, sampled outputs should vary in pose and layout while holding identity, unlike segmentation or depth conditioning.
  • The method transfers to different diffusion backbones and samplers that use clean-image estimates, since the loss is computed on $\hat z_0$ rather than on the noisy latent.
  • The reported operating point of CLIP-I 0.8323 with I-DINO 0.2754 sits between DINO's stagnant 0.8735/0.1682 and CLIP's divergent 0.7480/0.4787, offering a concrete middle setting on the fidelity-diversity plane.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: vary the guidance scale $s(t)$ across a sweep and map the (CLIP-I, I-DINO) curve; the paper's "balanced" reading predicts a smooth monotone curve with DGM occupying the middle, which would turn the threshold claim into a measurable property.
  • The same clean-image gradient recipe could be applied to other descriptors, yielding a general diagnostic for whether any feature extractor is spatially rigid or semantically loose before deployment.
  • Since DGM features are robust to geometry, a natural next step is to use them as a subject-identity regularizer inside personalized models, a direction the paper itself names as future work; if it works, personalization could trade less diversity for identity.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using Deep Geometric Moments (DGM), a pretrained feature extractor, as a training-free guidance signal for diffusion-based text-to-image generation. The method builds on Universal Guidance: at each sampling step the estimated clean image is compared with the reference image in DGM feature space using an MSE loss, with a repeated-correction recurrence. Experiments are conducted on a new dataset, DGMBench, of 30 animal subjects, comparing CLIP-I, a proposed I-DINO diversity metric, and ChatGPT-4o-latest quality scores against several baselines, including DINO, ResNet34, CLIP, segmentation maps, IP-Adapter, and ControlNet-Depth. The central claim is that DGM guidance balances subject fidelity and output diversity better than existing feature-guidance methods.

Significance. If the central claim were established with adequate controls, the contribution would be of genuine interest: a training-free, off-the-shelf guidance signal based on geometric moments that avoids both spatial rigidity and semantic over-alignment, explicitly targeting the fidelity-diversity trade-off. The paper's strengths include the use of an existing pretrained DGM model, a clean integration into the Universal Guidance framework, the inclusion of failure cases and limitations in the supplement, and the use of multiple quantitative metrics. However, the evaluation as presented does not currently support the headline balance claim, because the operating points of the compared methods are hand-selected, the diversity metric is not well defined, and the proposed 'balanced' threshold is not independently justified. The result is plausible but not yet demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (7)] The I-DINO formula as written sums over all i,j, including i=j. Since DINO similarity of an image with itself is 1, the term 1/n * sum_{i,j} equals 1 + (1/n)*sum_{i≠j} sim(img_i,img_j), so I-DINO as printed would be negative for any nonnegative cross-similarities. The positive values reported in Table 1 are therefore impossible under Eq. (7). If the intended sum is over i≠j, the normalization should be 1/(n(n-1)), and the formula must be corrected. Because I-DINO is the central diversity measure used to support the balance claim, this needs to be fixed and all table values recalculated.
  2. [§4.1, Table 2; §4.2, Table 1] Each method is evaluated at a single, manually selected guidance scale and loss function: Ours uses scale 10000 and MSE, ResNet 2000 and MSE, DINO 1000 and CosSim, CLIP 10 and CosSim, and segmentation 400 and CE. No selection rule, parameter sweep, or sensitivity analysis is reported. The claim that DGM achieves a better fidelity-diversity trade-off than alternatives requires comparing methods along the same Pareto frontier; single operating points cannot establish this. At minimum, the authors should report a sweep over guidance scales for all methods, or show that the qualitative conclusions are robust to reasonable variations of these settings.
  3. [Table 1 caption; §4.2] The designation of I-DINO values as 'balanced', 'stagnant', or 'divergent' is introduced without an objective definition. I-DINO 0.2754 is called balanced, while 0.1682 (DINO) is called stagnant and 0.4787 (ResNet) is called divergent, but no criterion, user study, or utility function is given to justify these thresholds. Moreover, Table 1 reports single values over 30 subjects without error bars or significance tests. It is therefore not possible to determine whether 0.2754 is statistically distinguishable from 0.1682 or 0.4847, or whether the 'balanced' label is a post hoc interpretation of the authors' own metric.
  4. [§4.1, Table 2, Eq. (5)] The comparison conflates the choice of feature descriptor with the choice of loss function and feature dimensionality. DGM and ResNet use MSE on 256- and 512-dimensional features, while DINO and CLIP use cosine similarity on 384- and 768-dimensional features, and segmentation maps use cross-entropy. Any difference in behavior could be attributed to the loss or the feature scaling rather than to DGM's geometric-moment representation. A controlled comparison that fixes the loss function and feature dimension, or an ablation varying the loss for a single descriptor, is needed to support the paper's attribution of the results to DGM.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The caption states that 'for all metrics, higher scores correspond to better performance' but then says that I-DINO values nearing 0.5 imply inconsistent output. This is contradictory; the direction of the I-DINO scale should be clarified.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The continuous integral notation in Eq. (1) is not appropriate for discrete images. Please define f(x,y) on a discrete grid and either use sums or state that the integral is a formal continuous analogue.
  3. [§3, Eq. (6)] The description of the recurrence step is unclear about the relationship between z_t, z_{t-1}, and z'_t. Please define the exact indices and clarify how the injected noise level relates to the DDIM update.
  4. [Supplement, Table 2] The feature sizes are listed as [1,256], [197,384], and similar; please clarify whether these are spatial dimensions and how global pooling is applied before the loss is computed.
  5. [§4.2, ChatGPT evaluation] The ChatGPT-4o-latest preference score is reported as a single mean without the number of comparisons, the number of trials, or the variance. Please provide these details, and consider reporting inter-run agreement or a human evaluation subset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; score reflects only minor same-group DGM self-citation and a post-hoc balance threshold, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical rather than derived. The guidance loss (Eqs. 4-5) minimizes MSE between DGM features of the reference and the estimated clean image, and the evaluation uses CLIP-I, I-DINO (computed from DINO embeddings), and ChatGPT scores; none of these metrics is the DGM feature space, so the reported balance between fidelity and diversity is not forced by the loss definition. The DGM encoder is taken off-the-shelf from prior same-group work (refs 16, 27) and is not fitted to the evaluation data or to any subset whose outcome is then reported as a prediction. The main weakness is that Table 1 labels I-DINO values as 'balanced' / 'stagnant' / 'divergent' using thresholds introduced only in the caption and Section 4.2, with no independent definition, error bars, or operating-point sweep; this threatens the empirical support for the balance claim, but it is an evaluation-validity concern, not a circular reduction, because the conclusion does not follow from the metric definitions by construction. The self-citations are not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem is invoked and no ansatz is imported by citation; the method is tested against external baselines and metrics. I therefore find no load-bearing circular step.

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

The paper's conclusion rests on hand-tuned guidance scales for each method, on the validity of CLIP-I and I-DINO as fidelity and diversity proxies, and on the untested assumption that the DGM feature extractor captures subject identity. No new physical entities are introduced; the new DGMBench dataset and I-DINO metric are evaluation artifacts, not entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Guidance scale s(t) for Ours = 10000
    Chosen empirically in the supplement (Table 2); the comparison depends on this hand-set value.
  • Guidance scales for baselines = 2000 (ResNet), 1000 (DINO), 10 (CLIP), 400 (Seg)
    Each baseline uses a different scale, selected based on empirical evaluation, which can bias relative performance.
  • Recurrence steps = 10
    Fixed across methods, but the choice of 10 re-injections is arbitrary and affects the diversity-fidelity trade-off.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption CLIP-I and I-DINO are valid, sufficient proxies for visual fidelity and output diversity.
    The central 'balance' conclusion rests entirely on these two metrics plus a ChatGPT score, with no human study or statistical validation.
  • domain assumption The pretrained DGM model, trained by the same group, provides a meaningful representation of subject identity.
    The method's effectiveness depends on DGM features capturing the right visual attributes; the paper does not validate this independently of its own qualitative examples.
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion v1.5 is an adequate base for comparing guidance methods.
    All methods use SD v1.5; the conclusion may not transfer to other diffusion backbones.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Guiding Diffusion with Deep Geometric Moments: Balancing Fidelity and Variation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4DBX4GEK

@misc{pith2026250512486,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Guiding Diffusion with Deep Geometric Moments: Balancing Fidelity and Variation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4DBX4GEK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12486}
}
read the original abstract

Text-to-image generation models have achieved remarkable capabilities in synthesizing images, but often struggle to provide fine-grained control over the output. Existing guidance approaches, such as segmentation maps and depth maps, introduce spatial rigidity that restricts the inherent diversity of diffusion models. In this work, we introduce Deep Geometric Moments (DGM) as a novel form of guidance that encapsulates the subject's visual features and nuances through a learned geometric prior. DGMs focus specifically on the subject itself compared to DINO or CLIP features, which suffer from overemphasis on global image features or semantics. Unlike ResNets, which are sensitive to pixel-wise perturbations, DGMs rely on robust geometric moments. Our experiments demonstrate that DGM effectively balance control and diversity in diffusion-based image generation, allowing a flexible control mechanism for steering the diffusion process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12486 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Deep Geometric Moments (DGM) are used as guidance to capture nuanced subject details from the reference image while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Failure cases of guidance based methods. Spatial rigidity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative Comparison of different methods. The leftmost image in each row is the reference image. Our method, which uses DGM as guidance, is followed by four alternative feature descriptors and two training-based methods. Overall, our DGM-based guidance achieves a balanced trade-off between visual consistency and generative diversity in the diffusion output. and often generate highly similar output, and sometimes … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Failure examples of our method. 11. Additional Qualitative Results More extensive qualitative comparison is shown in following Figures 5–8. For optimal clarity, the figures are best viewed in color prints. 12. Future Works Based on our findings, we hypothesize that DGM…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Additional qualitative comparison results for the prompt: "A photo of a bird". None of the results are cherry-picked. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Additional qualitative comparison results for the prompt: "A photo of a fish". None of the results are cherry-picked. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Additional qualitative comparison results for the prompt: "A photo of a horse". None of the results are cherry-picked. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Additional qualitative comparison results for the prompt: "A photo of a horse". None of the results are cherry-picked. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Deep vit features as dense visual descriptors

    Shir Amir, Yossi Gandelsman, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Deep vit features as dense visual descriptors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05814, 2(3):4, 2021. 3

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Universal guidance for diffusion models

    Arpit Bansal, Hong-Min Chu, Avi Schwarzschild, Soumyadip Sengupta, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Gold- stein. Universal guidance for diffusion models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 843–852, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Diffusion posterior sam- pling for general noisy inverse problems

    Hyungjin Chung, Jeongsol Kim, Michael T Mccann, Marc L Klasky, and Jong Chul Ye. Diffusion posterior sam- pling for general noisy inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14687, 2022. 3, 1

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Dimakis, and Mauricio Delbracio

    Giannis Daras, Hyungjin Chung, Chieh-Hsin Lai, Yuki Mitsu- fuji, Jong Chul Ye, Peyman Milanfar, Alexandros G. Dimakis, and Mauricio Delbracio. A survey on diffusion models for inverse problems. ArXiv, abs/2410.00083, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

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

    2021

  7. [7]

    Distilling diversity and control in diffusion models

    Rohit Gandikota and David Bau. Distilling diversity and control in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10637,

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Training-free guidance beyond differentiability: Scalable path steering with tree search in diffusion and flow models

    Yingqing Guo, Yukang Yang, Hui Yuan, and Mengdi Wang. Training-free guidance beyond differentiability: Scalable path steering with tree search in diffusion and flow models. ArXiv, abs/2502.11420, 2025. 2

    arXiv 2025

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 4

    2016

  2. [10]

    Manifold preserving guided diffusion

    Yutong He, Naoki Murata, Chieh-Hsin Lai, Yuhta Takida, Toshimitsu Uesaka, Dongjun Kim, Wei-Hsiang Liao, Yuki Mitsufuji, J Zico Kolter, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, et al. Manifold preserving guided diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16424, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 1, 2

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 1

    2020

  5. [13]

    Classdiffu- sion: More aligned personalization tuning with explicit class guidance

    Jiannan Huang, Jun Hao Liew, Hanshu Yan, Yuyang Yin, Yao Zhao, Humphrey Shi, and Yunchao Wei. Classdiffu- sion: More aligned personalization tuning with explicit class guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17532, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Readout guidance: Learning control from diffusion features

    Grace Luo, Trevor Darrell, Oliver Wang, Dan B Goldman, and Aleksander Holynski. Readout guidance: Learning control from diffusion features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 8217–8227, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Steered diffusion: A generalized framework for plug- and-play conditional image synthesis

    Nithin Gopalakrishnan Nair, Anoop Cherian, Suhas Lohit, Ye Wang, Toshiaki Koike-Akino, Vishal M Patel, and Tim K Marks. Steered diffusion: A generalized framework for plug- and-play conditional image synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Compute...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Polynomial implicit neural framework for promoting shape awareness in generative models

    Utkarsh Nath, Rajhans Singh, Ankita Shukla, Kuldeep Kulka- rni, and Pavan Turaga. Polynomial implicit neural framework for promoting shape awareness in generative models. In- ternational Journal of Computer Vision, pages 1–29, 2024. 2

    2024

  9. [17]

    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. 2

    2022

  10. [18]

    λ-ECLIPSE: Multi-concept personalized text-to-image diffu- sion models by leveraging CLIP latent space

    Maitreya Patel, Sangmin Jung, Chitta Baral, and Yezhou Yang. λ-ECLIPSE: Multi-concept personalized text-to-image diffu- sion models by leveraging CLIP latent space. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. 1

    2024

  11. [19]

    Eclipse: A resource-efficient text-to-image prior for image generations

    Maitreya Patel, Changhoon Kim, Sheng Cheng, Chitta Baral, and Yezhou Yang. Eclipse: A resource-efficient text-to-image prior for image generations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 9069–9078, 2024. 1

    2024

  12. [20]

    Steering rectified flow models in the vector field for con- trolled image generation

    Maitreya Patel, Song Wen, Dimitris N Metaxas, and Yezhou Yang. Steering rectified flow models in the vector field for con- trolled image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00100,

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    Zero-shot text-to-image generation

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea V oss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International confer- ence on machine learning , pages 8821–8831. Pmlr, 2021. 1

    2021

  15. [23]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn 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

    2022

  16. [24]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven gen- eration

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven gen- eration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- 5 puter vision and pattern recognition , page...

  17. [25]

    Seyedmorteza Sadat, Manuel Kansy, Otmar Hilliges, and Romann M. Weber. No training, no problem: Rethink- ing classifier-free guidance for diffusion models. ArXiv, abs/2407.02687, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Understanding and improv- ing training-free loss-based diffusion guidance

    Yifei Shen, Xinyang Jiang, Yezhen Wang, Yifan Yang, Dongqi Han, and Dongsheng Li. Understanding and improv- ing training-free loss-based diffusion guidance. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. 2

    2024

  19. [27]

    Improving shape awareness and interpretability in deep networks using geometric moments

    Rajhans Singh, Ankita Shukla, and Pavan Turaga. Improving shape awareness and interpretability in deep networks using geometric moments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4159–4168, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

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

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Loss-guided diffusion models for plug-and-play con- trollable generation

    Jiaming Song, Qinsheng Zhang, Hongxu Yin, Morteza Mar- dani, Ming-Yu Liu, Jan Kautz, Yongxin Chen, and Arash Vahdat. Loss-guided diffusion models for plug-and-play con- trollable generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 32483–32498. PMLR, 2023. 2

    2023

  22. [30]

    Unraveling the connections between flow matching and diffusion probabilistic models in training-free conditional generation

    Kaiyu Song and Hanjiang Lai. Unraveling the connections between flow matching and diffusion probabilistic models in training-free conditional generation. ArXiv, abs/2411.07625,

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Rethinking diffusion posterior sampling: From conditional score estimator to maximizing a posterior

    Tongda Xu, Xiyan Cai, Xinjie Zhang, Xingtong Ge, Dailan He, Limin Sun, Jingjing Liu, Ya-Qin Zhang, Jian Li, and Yan Wang. Rethinking diffusion posterior sampling: From conditional score estimator to maximizing a posterior. ArXiv, abs/2501.18913, 2025. 2

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    Hu Ye, Jun Zhang, Sibo Liu, Xiao Han, and Wei Yang. Ip- adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to- image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06721,

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Tfg: Unified training-free guidance for diffusion models

    Haotian Ye, Haowei Lin, Jiaqi Han, Minkai Xu, Sheng Liu, Yitao Liang, Jianzhu Ma, James Y Zou, and Stefano Ermon. Tfg: Unified training-free guidance for diffusion models. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:22370– 22417, 2024. 2

    2024

  26. [34]

    Freedom: Training-free energy-guided condi- tional diffusion model

    Jiwen Yu, Yinhuai Wang, Chen Zhao, Bernard Ghanem, and Jian Zhang. Freedom: Training-free energy-guided condi- tional diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 23174– 23184, 2023. 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    Training-free constrained gen- eration with stable diffusion models

    Stefano Zampini, Jacob Christopher, Luca Oneto, Davide An- guita, and Ferdinando Fioretto. Training-free constrained gen- eration with stable diffusion models. ArXiv, abs/2502.05625,

  28. [36]

    Improving diffusion in- verse problem solving with decoupled noise annealing

    Bingliang Zhang, Wenda Chu, Julius Berner, Chenlin Meng, Anima Anandkumar, and Yang Song. Improving diffusion in- verse problem solving with decoupled noise annealing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01521, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    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 6 Guiding Diffusion with Deep Geometric Moments: Balancing Fidelity and Variation Supplementary Material

    2023

  30. [38]

    Preliminaries for Diffusion models The forward process in diffusion models can be formulated as: q(xt|xt−1) =N (xt;√αtxt−1, (1−αt)I) where xt denotes predicted latent at timestep t, αt is the pre-defined variance schedule and I is the identity matrix. Then ourxt equation can b...

  31. [39]

    DGMBench focuses on subjects with fine details

    Dataset Details For evaluating the task of replicating the visual information of the subject in the input reference image, we curated our dataset, DGMBench. DGMBench focuses on subjects with fine details. The dataset was primarily created by utilizing a subset of the Dreambenc...

  32. [40]

    Experiment Details Rationale of selecting Universal Guidance as backbone Through empirical experiments, we observed that the Univer- sal Guidance mechanism outperforms other guidance meth- ods and inverse problem solvers in diffusion, with expense of some additional computatio...

    2000

  33. [41]

    Your focus is on low-level visual consistency - this includes color patterns, texture fidelity, and fine-grained inner geometric details (such as fur, stripes, surface patterns)

    Prompt for ChatGPT Evaulation 1 [Task] 2 You are a human evaluator assessing visual similarity between a reference image and a comparison image. Your focus is on low-level visual consistency - this includes color patterns, texture fidelity, and fine-grained inner geometric det...

  34. [42]

    Limitations and Failure Cases The performance of training-free guidance is highly depen- dent on the choice of feature descriptors and their combi- nation with the guidance parameters. The baseline image generator, Stable Diffusion, occasionally produces unwanted artifacts whe...

  35. [43]

    For optimal clarity, the figures are best viewed in color prints

    Additional Qualitative Results More extensive qualitative comparison is shown in following Figures 5–8. For optimal clarity, the figures are best viewed in color prints

  36. [44]

    A photo of a bird

    Future Works Based on our findings, we hypothesize that DGM can be leveraged as a prior to enhance the performance of existing personalized, subject-driven text-to-image (T2I) models, a direction we leave for future work. 2 SD- Img2Img IP-Adapter Segmentation Maps ControlNet -...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.