Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

TextPixs: Glyph-Conditioned Diffusion with Character-Aware Attention and OCR-Guided Supervision

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper claims GCDA, by fusing glyph and semantic text streams, segregating character attention, and fine-tuning with OCR feedback, reaches a 0.08 character error rate on T2I-CompBench, down from 0.21.

desk verdict The paper never defines which positions in the fused embedding correspond to which characters, so its central character-aware attention loss is not computable as written—and the abstract's 'SOTA on all metrics' conflicts with its own Table 2. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06033 v1 pith:V5NYW2H3 submitted 2025-07-08 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Syeda Anshrah Gillani , Mirza Samad Ahmed Baig , Osama Ahmed Khan , Shahid Munir Shah , Umema Mujeeb , Maheen Ali This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords text-to-imagegenerationdiffusionmodelsglyphconditioningcharacter-awareattentionOCR-guidedsupervisiontextrenderingspellingaccuracyT2I-CompBench
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 argues that diffusion text-to-image models cannot spell because they lose orthographic information at tokenization, let adjacent characters' attention maps bleed into one another, and are trained on losses that never reward correctness. GCDA is a three-part answer: a dual-stream encoder pairs BERT semantics with a glyph CNN so the model knows what letters look like, a character-aware attention segregation loss keeps each letter's spatial focus distinct, and an OCR-in-the-loop fine-tuning stage backpropagates a differentiable edit-distance and feature-space loss from a frozen TrOCR critic. The central claim is that this combination sets a new state of the art on T2I-CompBench text rendering, with character error rate 0.08 versus 0.21 for the previous best, exact match accuracy 75.4%, and FID 14.3. If correct, it would make accurately spelled text in AI-generated marketing, signage, and interface images a practical feature rather than a lucky accident.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the fused text embedding $E_{\text{final}} = \text{TransformerLayer}(E_{\text{sem}}^{(proj)} + E_{\text{glyph}}^{(proj)})$, combining a frozen BERT semantic stream with a learned CNN over a canonical 256x64 binary glyph rendering of the quoted text; this fused embedding supplies keys and values to the U-Net's cross-attention. Around it sit two training signals: the attention segregation loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{char\_attn}}$, a margin-based squared cosine-similarity penalty over flattened per-character attention maps $A_i$ applied at layers 8, 12, and 16, and the text perceptual loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{text\_perceptual}} = \lambda_{\text{cer}}\mathcal{L}_{\text{CER}} + \lambda_{\text{wer}}\mathcal{L}_{\text{WER}} + \lambda_{\text{feat}}\mathcal{L}_{\text{feat}}$, where the CER and WER terms use a smooth-min approximation of edit distance and the feature term compares OCR intermediate features of the cropped text against a clean render.

What would settle it

Take a prompt like 'a sign saying HELLO,' run Stage 1's trained model, and extract the cross-attention maps at layers 8, 12, and 16 that feed Eq. (8); if the released code cannot enumerate one attention map per letter, or if the five maps overlap substantially, the claimed attention mechanism and the CER 0.08 result are not supported. A simpler check is to reproduce OCR-measured CER on T2I-CompBench from the released model and see whether 0.08 replicates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GCDA's central claim is that the text-rendering failure of diffusion models is not a single bug but three independent gaps—missing character-shape knowledge, overlapping cross-attention for adjacent letters, and no direct objective for legibility—and that addressing all three jointly is what produces the reported gains. On T2I-CompBench the paper reports character error rate 0.08, word error rate 0.15, exact match 75.4%, and CLIP score 0.308, with FID 14.3 comparable to the best baselines. Ablations attribute most of the gain to the OCR-in-the-loop stage (removing it raises CER to 0.25), the attention segregation loss (0.19 without it), and the glyph stream (0.32 without it), supporting the paper's claim that every component contributes.

Load-bearing premise

The attention segregation loss assumes the model can identify which positions in the fused text embedding correspond to individual characters, but the paper never specifies how a character token is located in the final fused sequence, so the loss as defined may not even be computable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Text rendering reaches deployable accuracy: a 75.4% exact match rate means most short prompts come out correctly spelled, and the paper reports 43% lower CER than the previous best text-specialized method.
  • No image-quality sacrifice: FID 14.3 and CLIP score 0.308 are reported as competitive or better than baselines, so the text gains do not come at the cost of scene fidelity.
  • Component interdependency is central: the ablations show that removing any one of the three modules costs 62–212% relative CER, implying the method's payoff depends on the full pipeline, not any single trick.
  • The same recipe is claimed to transfer to other symbol-critical generation tasks such as equations, code syntax, or chemical formulas, since the dual-stream/OCR-loop design is not script- or alphabet-specific.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: applying the same dual-stream plus OCR recipe to connected scripts such as Arabic or Devanagari would show whether canonical-glyph rendering at 24pt Arial is the bottleneck; the paper's limitations section suggests it would be.
  • A practical corollary the authors leave implicit: at 75% exact match, a production system should OCR its own output and regenerate on mismatch, turning the residual failure rate into a cheap verification loop.
  • A further implication: the soft edit-distance smooth-min trick is a generic way to make OCR metrics differentiable, so the same fine-tuning objective could be bolted onto GAN or autoregressive image generators, not just diffusion backbones.
  • If the released code does not define how per-character tokens are recovered from the fused text embedding, the reported ablation gain from attention segregation is better attributed to the glyph stream and OCR loss; that attribution can only be checked once the code is public.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GCDA, a three-component extension of a Stable Diffusion backbone for text rendering: a dual-stream text encoder (a frozen BERT semantic stream plus a glyph-image Character-CNN orthographic stream), a character-aware attention segregation loss applied during Stage-1 foundational training, and an OCR-in-the-loop Stage-2 fine-tuning procedure with a composite text-perceptual loss. Experiments on T2I-CompBench and related benchmarks report strong text-accuracy numbers: CER 0.08, WER 0.15, exact-match accuracy 75.4%, with FID 14.3 and IS 157.5. The authors conclude that GCDA sets a new state of the art for text rendering in diffusion models.

Significance. If substantiated, the reported results would be a meaningful step: the paper directly targets a well-known weakness of text-to-image models, proposes sensible high-level interventions (glyph conditioning, attention separation, OCR feedback), and includes an ablation study for each component. The manuscript also acknowledges limitations such as stylized fonts, long text, and multilingual scripts. However, the central claim of state-of-the-art performance is not supported by the paper's own table, the core attention loss is not well-defined as written, the OCR loss is not shown to be differentiable, and the evaluation is potentially circular with the training critic. No code, data, or model artifacts are provided. Because these issues are load-bearing, the significance of the work cannot be assessed at publication level.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Table 2] The central claim of state-of-the-art performance on "all metrics" is contradicted by the paper's own Table 2. GCDA has FID 14.3, while TextDiffuser-2 has FID 14.1 and DALL-E 2 has FID 13.9; GCDA's IS of 157.5 is also lower than TextDiffuser-2's 158.2. The abstract and Section 1 further claim a 0.21 "previous best" CER and "best picture quality," but Table 2 reports TextDiffuser-2 at CER 0.14 and does not show GCDA as best on FID or IS. The numerical claims and the table must be reconciled before any state-of-the-art statement can be accepted.
  2. [Sec. 3.7.3, Eq. (8), and Algorithm 1] The character-aware attention segregation loss is not well-defined. Equation (8) requires, for every character index i, a flattened spatial attention map A_i of the i-th character token. However, Sec. 3.6 defines cross-attention over the N tokens of E_final, where E_final comes from E_fused = E_sem + E_glyph followed by a Transformer layer (Eqs. 3-6). The semantic stream is BERT subword-tokenized, the glyph stream is a CharCNN applied to a whole rendered glyph image with only a "learned mapping" to match length, and the Transformer layer mixes all positions. The manuscript never specifies which positions of E_final correspond to which individual characters, nor how repeated letters or subword splits are handled. Algorithm 1 (line 21) nonetheless computes this loss at every Stage-1 step; without a character-to-position mapping, the loss cannot be computed as stated. This is a load-bearing gap because the reported gains are attributed to the attention segregation mechanism.
  3. [Sec. 3.8.1 and Algorithm 2] The claimed OCR-in-the-loop supervision is not shown to be differentiable. Algorithm 2 (line 19) obtains text sequences T_rec from the OCR model, and Eqs. (10)-(12) define soft edit distance between T_rec and T_gt. The soft-min approximation smooths the min operation in dynamic programming, but the OCR model's output is a discrete token sequence; no distributional parameterization (e.g., soft CTC, Gumbel-softmax sampling, or a derivation over OCR logits) is given, and no gradient path from T_rec to the generator is established. As written, L_CER and L_WER are functions of discrete strings and have zero gradient with respect to the generator parameters. The large ablation effect of removing the OCR stage cannot therefore be attributed to the proposed differentiable CER/WER losses without an explicit derivation.
  4. [Sec. 3.8.3, Sec. 4.6, and Sec. 4.7] The evaluation is vulnerable to circularity. TrOCR-large is the frozen critic used during fine-tuning (Sec. 3.8.3 and Sec. 4.7), but the manuscript never states which OCR model computes the reported CER/WER/exact-match numbers in Table 2. If the same TrOCR model is used for evaluation, those numbers are directly optimized by the training loss and may not reflect independent readability. The human study in Sec. 4.11 is a partial mitigation, but with only 50 participants and no inter-rater agreement or significance testing, it does not validate the quantitative headline results. The authors should specify the evaluation OCR model and report results on an independent OCR system.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 1, Sec. 4.3, Sec. 4.9, and Fig. 9] The numerical claims are internally inconsistent: Section 1 says "almost 60 percent" improvement over a 0.21 best, Section 4.3 says 43% improvement over TextDiffuser-2, Section 4.9 says "42.9 percent" and "25.5 absolute improvement" in exact match, while Fig. 9 and Table 2 imply +15.3 absolute improvement. These numbers should be harmonized.
  2. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 6] The paper states an intention to release code, models, and benchmarks, but none are provided. A reproducibility appendix or artifact statement would be needed to support the quantitative claims.
  3. [Sec. 4.8] DALL-E 2 is evaluated via a closed API and reported without standard deviations; this should be stated as a limitation and the API version/date provided.
  4. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typos and informal passages (e.g., "detail explanation", "ThThe", "power- complete frame-work", and the first-person sections "How We Actually Solved This Problem" and "Wrapping Up"). The paper needs careful proofreading and a conventional academic tone.
  5. [Sec. 4.6] The citation for DrawText appears to be CRAFT (Ref. [4]), which is a text detection method, not the DrawText benchmark. Please provide the correct references for all evaluation benchmarks.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the headline CER/WER gains are computed from OCR recognition by the same class of critic used as the Stage-2 training loss, and the paper never states a different evaluator; the undefined per-character attention loss is a separate correctness gap.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.8.3 and Algorithm 2 (lines 19-23) vs Sec. 4.6 'Evaluation Metrics' and Sec. 4.7 'Implementation Details']
    "{T_rec^(b)} ← O({I_crop^(b)}) ⊲ OCR recognition; LCER ← (1/B) Σ SoftEditDistance(T_rec^(b), T_gt^(b))/|T_gt^(b)|. ... 'Character Error Rate (CER): Proportion of incorrectly recognized characters, computed using state-of-the-art OCR models.' ... 'OCR Model: TrOCR-large (334M parameters) frozen during all training stages.'"

    Algorithm 2 defines the Stage-2 objective as a soft edit distance between TrOCR's reading of the generated crop and the target text. The metric section defines CER/WER by OCR recognition ('computed using state-of-the-art OCR models') and the implementation section names TrOCR-large as the only OCR model in the pipeline, without stating that evaluation uses a different OCR model. The ablation says removing the OCR loop raises CER from 0.08 to 0.25, showing that most of the reported SOTA gain is exactly the decrease of the training objective's hard counterpart. As written, the reported CER/WER are therefore not shown to be independent of the critic that was optimized; the 'prediction' reduces to the fitted training loss unless a separate OCR evaluator is silently used.

full rationale

The central text-rendering claim is not fully self-definitional: the reported CER/WER are measured on held-out sets (T2I-CompBench, DrawText, TextCaps-Eval) rather than the training split, and the dual-stream encoder plus attention-segregation mechanism are specified as separate architectural interventions. However, the OCR-in-the-loop component creates a real circularity risk. Algorithm 2 minimizes LCER/LWER computed from TrOCR's recognition of generated text, while the paper's evaluation metric is also OCR-based and no different OCR model is identified for testing; if TrOCR serves as both training critic and evaluator, the 0.25→0.08 CER improvement attributed to Stage 2 is simply the hard version of the minimized objective. This is a partial reduction of the reported SOTA to the training setup. Separately, Eq. 8's 'character token' attention maps are not well-defined because E_final's N positions come from BERT subword tokenization and the glyph CNN only applies a learned length-matching mapping, so no per-character index i is ever constructed; that is a load-bearing correctness/completeness defect rather than a circular equivalence, so it does not by itself raise the circularity score. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present, and the comparison against external baselines provides independent content where the OCR evaluator is external.

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

The central method relies on several unshown assumptions: the OCR loss is not rigorously derived, character tokens are undefined, and hyperparameters are tuned; the paper's contributions reduce to an empirically claimed combination with no code.

free parameters (4)
  • attention loss weight lambda_attn = 0.1
    Selected from sensitivity analysis in Table 5; peak at 0.1 over 0.05 and 0.20, indicating tuning to validation.
  • OCR loss weights lambda_cer, lambda_wer, lambda_feat = 1.0, 0.5, 0.3
    Reported as empirically determined weighting factors in Sec. 3.8.1 without a systematic study.
  • attention margin tau = 0.1
    Tuned via Table 5; performance varies from 0.05 to 0.15, selected at the peak.
  • soft-min temperature gamma = 0.1
    Chosen for smooth min approximation in Eq. 10; no sensitivity analysis given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption OCR recognition quality is a valid proxy for human legibility
    The whole OCR-in-the-loop supervision is premised on this; stated in Sec. 3.8.3.
  • domain assumption Individual character tokens are identifiable in the fused embedding
    Eq. 8 requires attention maps A_i per character, but no mechanism defines which fused token positions map to which characters; Sec. 3.6.4 and 3.7.3.
  • domain assumption Soft-min edit distance is a faithful differentiable surrogate for CER/WER
    The paper does not justify that optimizing soft edit distance on OCR outputs yields correct spelling; Eq. 10 uses gamma=0.1 but no theorem or experiment.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning SD v1.5 with a BERT text encoder preserves image quality
    The model replaces CLIP with BERT and reports FID 14.3, but no discussion of domain shift or catastrophic forgetting; Sec. 4.7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TextPixs: Glyph-Conditioned Diffusion with Character-Aware Attention and OCR-Guided Supervision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5NYW2H3

@misc{pith2026250706033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TextPixs: Glyph-Conditioned Diffusion with Character-Aware Attention and OCR-Guided Supervision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5NYW2H3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06033}
}
read the original abstract

The modern text-to-image diffusion models boom has opened a new era in digital content production as it has proven the previously unseen ability to produce photorealistic and stylistically diverse imagery based on the semantics of natural-language descriptions. However, the consistent disadvantage of these models is that they cannot generate readable, meaningful, and correctly spelled text in generated images, which significantly limits the use of practical purposes like advertising, learning, and creative design. This paper introduces a new framework, namely Glyph-Conditioned Diffusion with Character-Aware Attention (GCDA), using which a typical diffusion backbone is extended by three well-designed modules. To begin with, the model has a dual-stream text encoder that encodes both semantic contextual information and explicit glyph representations, resulting in a character-aware representation of the input text that is rich in nature. Second, an attention mechanism that is aware of the character is proposed with a new attention segregation loss that aims to limit the attention distribution of each character independently in order to avoid distortion artifacts. Lastly, GCDA has an OCR-in-the-loop fine-tuning phase, where a full text perceptual loss, directly optimises models to be legible and accurately spell. Large scale experiments to benchmark datasets, such as MARIO-10M and T2I-CompBench, reveal that GCDA sets a new state-of-the-art on all metrics, with better character based metrics on text rendering (Character Error Rate: 0.08 vs 0.21 for the previous best; Word Error Rate: 0.15 vs 0.25), human perception, and comparable image synthesis quality on high-fidelity (FID: 14.3).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06033 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Core Text Rendering Problem. Current T2I models (a) consistently fail to generate accurate text, produc￾ing garbled or meaningless character sequences. Our GCDA model (b) generates precise, legible text while maintaining image quality. understanding of character geometry, spelling constraints, and typographic principles. Our methodology addresses the text rendering problem simultaneously across multiple levels o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comprehensive GCDA Framework Architecture. Our model enhances a standard latent diffusion model with a dual-stream text encoder that processes both semantic context (via BERT) and visual character structure (via glyph rendering and CNN). The fused embeddings condition the U-Net, whose attention layers are regularized by our character-aware attention segregation loss during training. 3.6 Dual-Stream Text Encoder: Bri… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Complementary Information from Dual Streams. The semantic stream provides rich context while the orthographic stream ensures character accuracy. Fusion creates comprehensive understanding by combining both. to allocate distinct, non-overlapping spatial regions to in￾dividual character tokens. This mechanism, illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Character-Aware Attention Segregation Mechanism. Without spatial segregation (left), attention maps for different characters overlap, leading to character fusion. Our attention segregation loss (right) encourages distinct, non￾overlapping spatial attention for each cha…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Attention Problems and Our Solution. Without control, character attention maps overlap or drift, causing blurred or incorrectly spaced text. Our segregation loss enforces distinct spatial attention for each character, producing sharp, legible text. To address this, we …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: OCR-in-the-Loop Fine-Tuning Framework. Visualization of the proposed OCR-in-the-loop fine-tuning process for text-guided image generation. character tokens. This provides a natural, model-intrinsic way to locate text regions. 3. Learned Text Proposal Network: For cases…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: OCR Feedback Creates Self-Improvement. Unlike traditional training that only measures visual similarity, our approach provides direct feedback on text accuracy, enabling the model to learn from its spelling mistakes. Algorithm 1 Stage 1: Foundational Generative Trainin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Curriculum-Based Training Strategy. Stage 1 builds a solid foundation for image generation with basic text awareness. Stage 2 specializes this foundation for perfect text accuracy without compromising image quality. with really clean text samples. We probably went over…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance Breakthrough Visualization. GCDA achieves dramatic improvements in text accuracy (43% better CER, +15.3% exact match) while maintaining excellent image quality, solving the fundamental trade-off that plagued previous methods. 2. Image Quality Preservation: …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ablation Study Visualization. Every component of GCDA is essential. Removing any component leads to significant performance degradation, proving that our integrated approach is necessary for success. • Text Accuracy: "Does the text match the intended con￾tent?" (Scale…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative Comparison Across Different Methods. Our GCDA model consistently generates accurate, legible text while maintaining high image quality. Examples show progression from poor (left) to perfect (right) text rendering. Semantic versus Symbolic Understanding. Ou…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Real-World Applications and Impact. GCDA enables accurate text generation across multiple industries, from marketing and education to technology and accessibility, democratizing professional design capabilities. Multi-Modal Reasoning with Text. Integrating our text re…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Future Research Directions. GCDA opens pathways from basic text rendering to advanced multimodal AI systems that could transform how humans and machines collaborate on creative and technical tasks. methods often involved trade-offs, but our integrated solution proves …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Complex Typography Examples. Our model handles various challenging text scenarios with reasonable success,though some artistic and highly stylized cases remain challenging. B.2 Failure Case Analysis Detailed analysis of scenarios where our model still struggles: Failu…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Failure Case Examples. Scenarios where our model still faces challenges, indicating directions for future improvement. C Implementation Guidelines For researchers and practitioners interested in implementing or extending our approach, we provide detailed guidelines an…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A prompt log analysis of text-to-image generation systems,

    Y. Xie, Z. Pan, J. Ma, L. Jie, and Q. Mei, “A prompt log analysis of text-to-image generation systems,” in WWW, 2023, pp. 3892–3902.d o i: 10. 1145/ 3543507.3587430

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Learning transferable visual mod- els from natural language supervision,

    A. Radfordet al., “Learning transferable visual mod- els from natural language supervision,” inICML, 2021, pp. 8748–8763. [Online]. Available:https: //arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Neural ma- chine translation of rare words with subword units,

    R. Sennrich, B. Haddow, and A. Birch, “Neural ma- chine translation of rare words with subword units,” in ACL, 2016, pp. 1715–1725. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.07909

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Character Region Awareness for Text Detection

    Y. Baek, B. Lee, D. Han, S. Yun, and H. Lee, “Char- acter region awareness for text detection,” inCVPR, 2019, pp. 9365–9374. [Online]. Available:https: //arxiv.org/abs/1904.01941

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    GANstrainedbyatwotime-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium,

    M. Heusel, H. Ramsauer, T. Unterthiner, B. Nessler, andS.Hochreiter,“GANstrainedbyatwotime-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium,” in NeurIPS, 2017. [Online]. Available:https:// arxiv.org/abs/1706.08500

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    GlyphDraw: Seamlessly rendering text withintricatespatialstructuresintext-to-imagegener- ation,

    J. Maet al., “GlyphDraw: Seamlessly rendering text withintricatespatialstructuresintext-to-imagegener- ation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17870, 2023. [On- line]. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/2303. 17870

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Fourier analysis of near-field patterns generated by propagating polaritons

    L. Chen et al., “CharGen: A high-quality character-level visual text generation model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17225, 2024. [Online]. Available: https : / / arxiv . org / abs / 2402 . 17225

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    A-STAR: Test-time Attention Segregation and Retention for Text-to-image Synthesis

    A. Agarwal, S. Karanam, K. J. Joseph, A. Saxena, K.Goswami,andB.V.Srinivasan,“A-star:Test-time attention segregation and retention for text-to-image synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14544, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2306.14544

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention control,

    A. Hertz, R. Mokady, J. Tenenbaum, K. Aberman, Y. Pritch, and D. Cohen-Or, “Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention control,” inICLR, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2208.01626

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    OCR-VQGAN: Taming text-within- image generation,

    J.A.R.Wu,D.Vazquez,I.Laradji,M.Pedersoli,and P. Rodriguez, “OCR-VQGAN: Taming text-within- image generation,” inWACV, 2023, pp. 3655–3665. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2210.11248

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents,

    A. Ramesh, P. Dhariwal, A. Nichol, C. Chu, and M. Chen, “Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 2022. [On- line]. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/2204. 06125

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” inCVPR, 2022, pp. 10684– 10695. [Online]. Available:https://arxiv.org/ abs/2112.10752

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    TextDiffuser: Diffusion models as text painters,

    J. Chen, Y. Huang, T. Lv, L. Cui, Q. Chen, and F. Wei, “TextDiffuser: Diffusion models as text painters,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10855, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2305.10855

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    TextDiffuser-2: Unleashing the power of language models for text rendering,

    J. Chen, Y. Huang, T. Lv, L. Cui, Q. Chen, and F. Wei, “TextDiffuser-2: Unleashing the power of language models for text rendering,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16465, 2023. [Online]. Available: https : / / arxiv . org / abs / 2311 . 16465

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    GlyphControl: Glyph con- ditional control for visual text generation,

    Y. Yang et al., “GlyphControl: Glyph con- ditional control for visual text generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18259, 2023. [On- line]. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/2305. 18259

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Any- Text: Multilingual visual text generation and edit- ing,

    Y. Tuo, W. Xiang, J. He, Y. Geng, and X. Xie, “Any- Text: Multilingual visual text generation and edit- ing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03054, 2024. [On- line]. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/2311. 03054

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Adding con- ditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,

    L. Zhang, A. Rao, and M. Agrawala, “Adding con- ditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,” in ICCV, 2023, pp. 3836–3847. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05543

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Generative adversarial networks,

    I. J. Goodfellow et al., “Generative adversarial networks,” inNeurIPS, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2661

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Un- supervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks,

    A. Radford, L. Metz, and S. Chintala, “Un- supervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06434, 2016. [Online]. Available: https : / / arxiv . org / abs / 1511 . 06434

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Astyle-basedgener- ator architecture for generative adversarial networks,

    T.Karras,S.Laine,andT.Aila,“Astyle-basedgener- ator architecture for generative adversarial networks,” in CVPR, 2019, pp. 4401–4410. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04948

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    StackGAN: Text to photo-realistic image synthesis with stacked generative adversar- ial networks,

    H. Zhangetal., “StackGAN: Text to photo-realistic image synthesis with stacked generative adversar- ial networks,” inICCV, 2017, pp. 5907–5915. [On- line]. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/1612. 03242

    2017

  14. [22]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” inNeurIPS, 2020. [Online]. Available: https : / / arxiv . org / abs / 2006 . 11239

    2020

  15. [23]

    Denoisingdiffusion implicitmodels,

    J.Song,C.Meng,andS.Ermon,“Denoisingdiffusion implicitmodels,” inICLR,2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02502. 27

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Auto-encoding varia- tional bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding varia- tional bayes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1312.6114

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Photorealistic text-to-image dif- fusion models with deep language understand- ing,

    C. Sahariaet al., “Photorealistic text-to-image dif- fusion models with deep language understand- ing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11487, 2022. [On- line]. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/2205. 11487

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Scaling autoregressive mod- els for content-rich text-to-image generation,

    J. Yu et al., “Scaling autoregressive mod- els for content-rich text-to-image generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10789, 2022. [Online]. Available: https : / / arxiv . org / abs / 2206 . 10789

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswaniet al., “Attention is all you need,” in NeurIPS, 2017. [Online]. Available: https : / / arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transfor- mers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transfor- mers for language understanding,” inNAACL, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1810.04805

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    LLaMA: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron et al., “LLaMA: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. [On- line]. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/2302. 13971

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Make-A-Scene: Scene- based text-to-image generation with human pri- ors,

    O. Gafni, A. Polyak, O. Ashual, S. Sheynin, D. Parikh, and Y. Taigman, “Make-A-Scene: Scene- based text-to-image generation with human pri- ors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13131, 2022. [On- line]. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/2203. 13131

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    ReCo: Region-controlled text-to- imagegeneration,

    Z. Yang et al., “ReCo: Region-controlled text-to- imagegeneration,”in CVPR,2023,pp.19227–19236. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2211.15518

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Improving compositional text-to- image generation with large vision-language mod- els,

    S. Wen, G. Fang, R. Zhang, P. Gao, H. Dong, and D. Metaxas, “Improving compositional text-to- image generation with large vision-language mod- els,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06311, 2023. [On- line]. Available:https://arxiv.org/abs/2310. 06311

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    TextInVision: Text and prompt complexity driven visual text generation benchmark,

    F. Fallah, M. Patel, A. Chatterjee, V. I. Morariu, C. Baral, and Y. Yang, “TextInVision: Text and prompt complexity driven visual text generation benchmark,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13730,2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2403.13730

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Spatial transformer networks,

    M. Jaderberg, K. Simonyan, A. Zisserman, and K. Kavukcuoglu, “Spatial transformer networks,” in NeurIPS, 2015. [Online]. Available: https : / / arxiv.org/abs/1506.02025

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    TrOCR: Transformer-based optical character recognition with pre-trained models,

    M. Li et al., “TrOCR: Transformer-based optical character recognition with pre-trained models,” in ACM Multimedia, 2022. d o i: 10.1145/3503161. 3548234

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    T2I-CompBench++: An enhanced and compre- hensive benchmark for compositional text-to-image generation,

    K. Huang, C. Duan, K. Sun, E. Xie, Z. Li, and X. Liu, “T2I-CompBench++: An enhanced and compre- hensive benchmark for compositional text-to-image generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06350, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2307.06350

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    TextCaps: A dataset for image captioning with read- ing comprehension,

    O. Sidorov, R. Hu, M. Rohrbach, and A. Singh, “TextCaps: A dataset for image captioning with read- ing comprehension,” inECCV, 2020, pp. 533–550. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2003.12462

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Improvedtechniquesfortrain- ing GANs,

    T.Salimans,I.Goodfellow,W.Zaremba,V.Cheung,A. Radford,andX.Chen,“Improvedtechniquesfortrain- ing GANs,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03498, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1606.03498

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    CLIPScore:Areference-freeevaluationmetric for image captioning,

    J.Hessel,A.Holtzman,M.Forbes,R.LeBras,andY. Choi,“CLIPScore:Areference-freeevaluationmetric for image captioning,” inEMNLP, 2021, pp. 594–

    2021

  32. [41]

    Start with our default values:𝜆attn = 0.1,𝜏 = 0.1

  33. [42]

    Adjust𝜆attn first, monitoring attention map quality

  34. [43]

    Fine-tune OCR loss weights based on target application requirements

  35. [44]

    Experiment with learning rate schedules for optimal convergence D SocietalImpactandFutureConsiderations D.1 Positive Applications Our improved text rendering capabilities enable numerous beneficial applications: Educational Technology: • Automated generation of educational mat...

  36. [609]

    Available:https://arxiv.org/ abs/2104.08718

    [Online]. Available:https://arxiv.org/ abs/2104.08718. 28 A Additional Experimental Details A.1 Extended Ablation Studies We provide additional ablation studies examining various designchoicesandhyperparameterselectionsthatcontribute to our framework’s performance. Table 5: Hy...

    arXiv

Pith tools

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