Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 34 references

Controllable diffusion-based generation for multi-channel biological data

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A diffusion model trained with random channel masking reconstructs missing biological channels from any observed subset and outperforms dedicated baselines on spatial and single-cell protein prediction.

desk verdict A plausible diffusion framework for multi-channel biological imputation whose flagship claim—arbitrary subset conditioning—is asserted but not yet directly tested; worth peer review with revision requests. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02902 v1 pith:Q3UOEEL5 submitted 2025-06-24 cs.LG cs.CE

Haoran Zhang , Mingyuan Zhou , Wesley Tansey This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.CE
keywords diffusionmodelsmulti-channelbiologicaldataimagingmasscytometrysingle-cellmultimodalpredictionconditionalgenerationrandomchannelmaskingchannel-wiseattentionspatialimputation
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

Biological profiling technologies such as imaging mass cytometry and single-cell sequencing produce many channels at once, and real experiments often measure only a subset of the channels a researcher cares about. This paper tries to establish that a single diffusion model, trained once, can generate any missing channels from any observed subset while preserving the spatial alignment between channels. The authors build the model around three ideas: injecting observed-channel features into the denoiser at multiple resolutions, applying channel-wise attention in both latent and output space, and training with random channel masking so one amortized model covers all conditioning configurations. If the claim is right, biologists could extend pre-designed antibody panels in silico, rescue corrupted or incomplete acquisitions, and pool datasets with partially overlapping panels without retraining per dataset.

What carries the argument

The framework has three load-bearing components. Hierarchical feature injection runs a parallel contextual network over the observed channels and injects its multi-resolution feature maps into the corresponding layers of a UNet denoiser through Squeeze-and-Excitation gating, which preserves spatial alignment while modulating the condition. Channel-wise attention appears in two places: inside the UNet blocks, where global-average-pooled features or transformer-style attention reweight latent channels, and at the output layer, where a residual Squeeze-and-Excitation path models dependencies among the semantic protein channels. Random channel masking samples a random observed subset each training iteration, so the model optimizes a single amortized conditional denoising objective over the space of all subsets. The masking scheme is what carries the arbitrary-conditioning generalization claim; the attention and injection mechanisms carry the fidelity claim.

What would settle it

Train the model on a 43-channel IMC dataset with random masking, then hold out random subsets of observed channels of sizes such as 5, 10, and 20 and measure per-protein Pearson correlation against leave-one-out results; if accuracy collapses on these intermediate subsets, the arbitrary-conditioning claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that multi-channel biological generation should be treated as conditional imputation of the full channel stack from any spatially aligned observed subset, and that a random-masking diffusion model can do this for arbitrary subsets at test time. On single-cell CITE-seq gene-to-protein prediction, the model records the highest protein-level Pearson correlation on all four benchmark datasets. On imaging mass cytometry data, it imputes a held-out protein channel from the remaining channels with higher correlation than kernel ridge regression, ControlNet, and the domain-specific Stem and MULTIPLAI models. The authors also report that training on the union of two partially overlapping protein panels outperforms training only on their intersection, which they interpret as evidence that partially missing channels still provide useful training signal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that randomly masking channels during training gives informative learning gradients for every combination of observed and missing channels, so the model can generalize to conditioning subsets it never saw during training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single trained model can output the full protein panel from any measured subset, so a biologist could change the antibody panel after collection and still predict the unmeasured proteins computationally.
  • The same architecture handles non-spatial single-cell data with many gene channels, so the method is not restricted to image-shaped inputs.
  • Because all channels are predicted jointly, training across datasets can be done by zero-padding missing channels rather than learning per-dataset models or per-protein heads.
  • The distilled one-step version keeps most of the prediction accuracy, making the approach usable without running iterative diffusion sampling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not tested in the paper: the experiments use leave-one-out and full-panel configurations, so evaluating random intermediate-size subsets would directly test whether the amortized model really generalizes to arbitrary conditioning.
  • Not tested in the paper: the same random-masking recipe could scale to spatial transcriptomics panels with thousands of genes, where computing channel-wise attention across all latent channels would be the main cost to watch.
  • If the union-set result holds beyond these two datasets, each new tissue atlas could improve imputation for all previously collected panels even when channel overlap is small, turning panel design into a collaborative accumulation of channels.
  • The hierarchical injection mechanism is not specific to biology; aligned multi-channel sensor data such as multispectral imagery could be conditioned the same way, treating each spectral band as an observed channel.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a conditional diffusion framework for multi-channel biological data. The method combines hierarchical feature injection from spatially aligned observed channels, channel-wise attention in latent and output spaces, and a random channel-masking training strategy intended to amortize over arbitrary subsets of observed channels. Experiments cover gene-to-protein prediction on four CITE-seq datasets and protein imputation on two IMC datasets, plus a cross-dataset union/intersection study and ablations of the proposed architectural components. The paper reports state-of-the-art Pearson correlations in both the single-cell and spatial settings and describes a one-step SiD-distilled variant for faster inference.

Significance. The modeling idea is attractive and the problem is practically important: biological profiling panels frequently have missing or unmeasured channels, and a single amortized model that can condition on many different subsets would be a useful tool. The paper is clearly written, formulates a general conditional-generation setting that covers both vector and spatial data, and includes a broader set of baselines than many prior works. The random-masking objective is a sensible extension of classifier-free guidance, and the one-step distillation variant is a practical addition. However, the headline capability of arbitrary-subset conditioning is not directly validated, and several reporting gaps prevent me from confirming the quantitative claims. The contribution would be solid if the missing experiments and consistency fixes are supplied, but on the current evidence the central promise remains unverified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, §5.2] The paper's central claim of test-time controllability over arbitrary subsets of observed channels (Section 1) is not directly tested. Algorithm 1 samples each channel independently with an unreported Bernoulli probability p, and Section 5.2 evaluates only two configurations: full-observation multi-channel output and leave-one-out single-channel imputation. No experiment samples random subsets of channels at test time, varies the size of the observed set, or probes extreme or rare combinations such as 1 of 43 observed channels in the lung IMC data. Because the number of subsets grows exponentially, independent Bernoulli masking does not by itself guarantee coverage of rare configurations, and the paper explicitly states in Section 3.2 that the informativeness assumption is 'not formally addressed.' The arbitrary-subset capability therefore remains an unvalidated promise. Please add random-subset experiments with several observed-set cardinalities, report the masking probability and the induced training distribution over subset sizes, and analyze performance as a function of the observed fraction.
  2. [§5.2, Table 2] The comparative claims are not supported by sufficient statistical reporting. No confidence intervals, standard deviations, or replication counts are given for any table, and the train/validation/test split is not described for either the CITE-seq or IMC experiments. The text lists 'single-protein predictor and kernel ridge regression' as baselines, but Table 2 reports only 'Most correlated protein' and 'Most spatially correlated protein' and has no KRR row, making the statement that all baselines fail to outperform the best linear predictor unverifiable from the displayed results. Please add error bars or per-patient/per-dataset results, describe the splits, and make the baseline table consistent with the methods listed.
  3. [§5.3, Table 3, and §5.2 cross-dataset paragraph] There are unresolved dataset inconsistencies. The ablation text says 'Using the lung cancer IMC dataset,' while Table 3's caption says 'breast cancer dataset.' In addition, the cross-dataset paragraph reports 23 common proteins, 18 lung-unique proteins, and 21 breast-unique proteins, which sum to 62 and do not reconcile with the stated totals of 43 and 50 channels. These inconsistencies must be corrected and verified before the ablation and generalization conclusions can be attributed to the intended datasets.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (5)] The symbol C is overloaded: it is used both for the number of channels and for the conditional space, and p(c) is written as if C were a set. Please introduce separate notation and define the conditional-configuration distribution explicitly.
  2. [Table 1] The column headers for BMNC and HSPC appear misaligned or duplicated, and the numeric rows are not consistently aligned. Please reformat the table so each dataset has a clear rc and rp column.
  3. [§5.2] The sentence 'Fixing the channel known to be missing during training improves performance in the single-protein prediction mode' is unclear, and no displayed result corresponds to this variant. Please explain the procedure or remove the sentence.
  4. [§5.2] The manuscript refers to an appendix with hybrid ControlNet/BrushNet experiments, but no appendix is present in the submitted text. Please include the appendix or remove the reference.
  5. [§5, general] No data availability, code availability, or hyperparameter settings are reported, including the masking probability p, number of diffusion steps, noise schedule, learning rate, batch size, and training budget. These details are needed for reproducibility.
  6. [Algorithm 1, full text] There are copyediting issues, including typos in Algorithm 1 ('conditon', 'encorages'), and the supplied text contains uninterpretable token sequences such as repeated '/gid...' strings. The final manuscript should be carefully proofread and rendered cleanly.
  7. [§6] The suggestion that the model may serve as a 'foundation model for spatial biology' is speculative given the scale of the experiments (two IMC datasets and four CITE-seq datasets). Please temper the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the diffusion objective, random-masking training, and held-out evaluations are independent of the claims they support.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is standard and self-contained. The conditional diffusion objective (Eq. 5) is defined directly from the forward noising process and the random masking scheme (Algorithm 1); it does not define the target in terms of the reported prediction. The architectural components (Eqs. 4, 6-9) are proposed mechanisms, not fitted parameters disguised as predictions. The empirical claims in Tables 1 and 2 are held-out Pearson correlations against independent baselines, so the state-of-the-art claim is supported by direct comparison rather than by construction. The random-masking assumption in Section 3.2 ('This strategy relies on the assumption that partially observed structured data can provide informative gradients... Although not formally addressed, previous work has shown its effectiveness in various domains') is an acknowledged unproven premise, and Section 5.2 only validates leave-one-out and full-observation configurations, so the 'arbitrary subsets' generalization is broader than what is tested. This is an empirical coverage gap or overclaim, not circularity: the test configurations are not encoded into the training objective in a way that forces the reported numbers. The only self-citations are references [30,31] for the 1-step SiD distillation variant, which is presented as an optional speed-up ('Our method remains competitive with 1-step distillation') and does not support the central claim, and reference [32] for the lung cancer dataset, which is a data source rather than an argument. Neither is load-bearing. No equation is shown to reduce to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

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

The central claim rests on standard diffusion theory plus a domain-specific assumption that observed channels can predict missing channels, and on the random masking assumption that the authors themselves flag as unproven. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unstated choices are hyperparameters (masking probability, steps, encoder).

free parameters (3)
  • masking probability p = not reported
    Controls the random observed-subset distribution in Algorithm 1; the paper never gives its value, though the amortized conditioning claim depends on it.
  • number of diffusion steps = 500 for full model, 1 for distilled SiD
    Inference uses 500 steps and the distilled version uses 1 step, both hand-chosen, affecting quality and speed.
  • pretrained encoder / latent downsampling = unspecified
    Inputs are tiled to 64x64 then reduced to 16x16 by an unidentified pretrained encoder; this is load-bearing for spatial conditioning but not described.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Score matching equivalence: noise prediction in DDPM equals score estimation.
    Section 2.1 invokes established diffusion theory (Sohl-Dickstein, Ho, Song) without proof.
  • domain assumption Observed channels contain sufficient information to reconstruct missing channels.
    The entire imputation framework assumes cross-channel predictability; the paper does not separately test channels with independent or idiosyncratic signals.
  • domain assumption Random masking provides informative gradients for all conditional configurations.
    Explicitly stated in Section 3.2 as an unformalized assumption; empirical justification only covers limited configurations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Controllable diffusion-based generation for multi-channel biological data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q3UOEEL5

@misc{pith2026250702902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Controllable diffusion-based generation for multi-channel biological data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q3UOEEL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02902}
}
read the original abstract

Spatial profiling technologies in biology, such as imaging mass cytometry (IMC) and spatial transcriptomics (ST), generate high-dimensional, multi-channel data with strong spatial alignment and complex inter-channel relationships. Generative modeling of such data requires jointly capturing intra- and inter-channel structure, while also generalizing across arbitrary combinations of observed and missing channels for practical application. Existing diffusion-based models generally assume low-dimensional inputs (e.g., RGB images) and rely on simple conditioning mechanisms that break spatial correspondence and ignore inter-channel dependencies. This work proposes a unified diffusion framework for controllable generation over structured and spatial biological data. Our model contains two key innovations: (1) a hierarchical feature injection mechanism that enables multi-resolution conditioning on spatially aligned channels, and (2) a combination of latent-space and output-space channel-wise attention to capture inter-channel relationships. To support flexible conditioning and generalization to arbitrary subsets of observed channels, we train the model using a random masking strategy, enabling it to reconstruct missing channels from any combination of inputs. We demonstrate state-of-the-art performance across both spatial and non-spatial prediction tasks, including protein imputation in IMC and gene-to-protein prediction in single-cell datasets, and show strong generalization to unseen conditional configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02902 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual comparison of samples generated by our model with samples generated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed diffusion model for multi-channel data generation. (a) Custom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Benchmarking generative performance (Pearson’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

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

    2023

  3. [3]

    Imaging mass cytometry.Cytometry Part A, 91(2):160–169, 2017

    Qing Chang, Olga I Ornatsky, Iram Siddiqui, Alexander Loboda, Vladimir I Baranov, and David W Hedley. Imaging mass cytometry.Cytometry Part A, 91(2):160–169, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Museum of spatial transcriptomics.Nature Methods, 19(5):534–546, 2022

    Lambda Moses and Lior Pachter. Museum of spatial transcriptomics.Nature Methods, 19(5):534–546, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 33, pages 11895–11907, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Lee, Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, David Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Huiwen Chang, Chris A. Lee, Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, David Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Palette: Image-to-image diffusion models. 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

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

    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. InCVPR, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A. Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. InProceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 37, pages 2256–2265, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Nontexture inpainting by curvature-driven diffusions.Journal of visual communication and image representation, 12(4):436–449, 2001

    Tony F Chan and Jianhong Shen. Nontexture inpainting by curvature-driven diffusions.Journal of visual communication and image representation, 12(4):436–449, 2001

    2001

  3. [11]

    Amortized inference in probabilistic reasoning

    Samuel Gershman and Noah Goodman. Amortized inference in probabilistic reasoning. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, volume 36, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Iterative amortized inference

    Joe Marino, Yisong Yue, and Stephan Mandt. Iterative amortized inference. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3403–3412. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks

    Jie Hu, Li Shen, and Gang Sun. Squeeze-and-excitation networks. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7132–7141, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alex Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 8780–8794, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 2022

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

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

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

    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

    2022

  9. [17]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. InNeurIPS 2021 Workshop on Deep Generative Models and Downstream Applications, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Learning spatially decoupled color representations for facial image colorization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12345, 2024

    Kai Zhang, Jiaxin Huang, Yujie Zhong, Yifan Sun, Jing Li, and Jiebo Luo. Learning spatially decoupled color representations for facial image colorization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12345, 2024. 10

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Colorpeel: Color prompt learning with diffusion models via color and shape disentanglement

    Muhammad Atif Butt, Kai Wang, Javier Vazquez-Corral, and Joost van de Weijer. Colorpeel: Color prompt learning with diffusion models via color and shape disentanglement. 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    A mixture-of-experts deep generative model for integrated analysis of single-cell multiomics data

    Kodai Minoura, Ko Abe, Hyunha Nam, Hiroyoshi Nishikawa, and Teppei Shimamura. A mixture-of-experts deep generative model for integrated analysis of single-cell multiomics data. Cell Reports Methods, 1(5):100071, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Explain- able multi-task learning for multi-modality biological data analysis.Nature Communications, 2024

    Xin Tang, Jiawei Zhang, Yichun He, Xinhe Zhang, Zuwan Lin, Sebastian Partarrieu, Emma Bou Hanna, Zhaolin Ren, Hao Shen, Yuhong Yang, Xiao Wang, Na Li, Jie Ding, and Jia Liu. Explain- able multi-task learning for multi-modality biological data analysis.Nature Communications, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Predictive modeling of highly multiplexed tumor tissue images by graph neural networks.medRxiv, 2021

    Javier Martin-Gonzalez et al. Predictive modeling of highly multiplexed tumor tissue images by graph neural networks.medRxiv, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Diffusion generative modeling for spatially resolved gene expression inference from histology images

    Sichen Zhu, Yuchen Zhu, Molei Tao, and Peng Qiu. Diffusion generative modeling for spatially resolved gene expression inference from histology images. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Integrated analysis of multimodal single-cell data.Cell, 184(13):3573–3587, 2021

    Yuhan Hao, Stephanie Hao, Erica Andersen-Nissen, William M Mauck, Shiwei Zheng, Andrew Butler, Maddie J Lee, Aaron J Wilk, Charlotte Darby, Michael Zager, et al. Integrated analysis of multimodal single-cell data.Cell, 184(13):3573–3587, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Simultaneous epitope and transcriptome measurement in single cells.Nature methods, 14(9):865–868, 2017

    Marlon Stoeckius, Christoph Hafemeister, William Stephenson, Brian Houck-Loomis, Pratip K Chattopadhyay, Harold Swerdlow, Rahul Satija, and Peter Smibert. Simultaneous epitope and transcriptome measurement in single cells.Nature methods, 14(9):865–868, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Luecken, Daniel B

    Christopher Lance, Malte D. Luecken, Daniel B. Burkhardt, Robrecht Cannoodt, Pia Rauten- strauch, Anna Laddach, Aidyn Ubingazhibov, Zhi-Jie Cao, Kaiwen Deng, Sumeer Khan, Qiao Liu, Nikolay Russkikh, Gleb Ryazantsev, Uwe Ohler, NeurIPS 2021 Multimodal data integra- tion competi...

    2021

  19. [27]

    A single-cell resolution map of mouse hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell differentiation.Blood, The Journal of the American Society of Hematology, 128(8):e20–e31, 2016

    Sonia Nestorowa, Fiona K Hamey, Blanca Pijuan Sala, Evangelia Diamanti, Mairi Shepherd, Elisa Laurenti, Nicola K Wilson, David G Kent, and Berthold Göttgens. A single-cell resolution map of mouse hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell differentiation.Blood, The Journal of the ...

    2016

  20. [28]

    Gabitto, Rohan V

    Tal Ashuach, Mariano I. Gabitto, Rohan V . Koodli, Giuseppe-Antonio Saldi, Michael I. Jordan, and Nir Yosef. Multivi: deep generative model for the integration of multimodal data.Nature Methods, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Multi-omics single-cell data integration and regulatory inference with graph-linked embedding.Nature Biotechnology, 40, 2022

    Zhi-Jie Cao and Ge Gao. Multi-omics single-cell data integration and regulatory inference with graph-linked embedding.Nature Biotechnology, 40, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Score identity distillation: Exponentially fast distillation of pretrained diffusion models for one-step generation

    Mingyuan Zhou, Huangjie Zheng, Zhendong Wang, Mingzhang Yin, and Hai Huang. Score identity distillation: Exponentially fast distillation of pretrained diffusion models for one-step generation. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Adversarial score identity distillation: Rapidly surpassing the teacher in one step.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14919, 2024

    Mingyuan Zhou, Xiaoyong Yuan, Fengyu Yang, Weixin Chen, Jinghui Chen, and Qiang Liu. Adversarial score identity distillation: Rapidly surpassing the teacher in one step.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14919, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Acqui- sition of discrete immune suppressive barriers contributes to the initiation and progression of preinvasive to invasive human lung cancer.bioRxiv, pages 2024–12, 2025

    Liron Yoffe, Bhavneet Bhinder, Sung Wook Kang, Haoran Zhang, Arshdeep Singh, Hiranmayi Ravichandran, Geoffrey Markowitz, Mitchell Martin, Junbum Kim, Chen Zhang, et al. Acqui- sition of discrete immune suppressive barriers contributes to the initiation and progression of prein...

    2024

  25. [33]

    The single-cell pathology landscape of breast cancer.Nature, 578(7796):615–620, 2020

    Hartland W Jackson, Jana R Fischer, Vito RT Zanotelli, H Raza Ali, Robert Mechera, Savas D Soysal, Holger Moch, Simone Muenst, Zsuzsanna Varga, Walter P Weber, et al. The single-cell pathology landscape of breast cancer.Nature, 578(7796):615–620, 2020. 11

    2020

  26. [34]

    High resolution mapping of the tumor microenvironment using integrated single-cell, spatial and in situ analysis.Nature Communications, 14(1):8353, 2023

    Amanda Janesick, Robert Shelansky, Andrew D Gottscho, Florian Wagner, Stephen R Williams, Morgane Rouault, Ghezal Beliakoff, Carolyn A Morrison, Michelli F Oliveira, Jordan T Sicherman, et al. High resolution mapping of the tumor microenvironment using integrated single-cell, ...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.