Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 6 cited by

This paper proposes a scalable group inference method that selects K diffusion outputs from M candidates by solving a quadratic integer program over quality and pairwise diversity scores, with progressive pruning on intermediate predictions

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Groups of generated images become more diverse while staying high-quality when K outputs are chosen from M candidates via a quadratic integer program with progressive pruning.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The progressive-pruning trick is real and the image results largely hold up, but the abstract overpromises video and the headline metrics are partly the exact objective being optimized. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.15773 v1 pith:KNKL2ZL2 submitted 2025-08-21 cs.CV cs.GRcs.LG

Scaling Group Inference for Diverse and High-Quality Generation

Gaurav Parmar , Or Patashnik , Daniil Ostashev , Kuan-Chieh Wang , Kfir Aberman , Srinivasa Narasimhan , Jun-Yan Zhu This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.GRcs.LG
keywords group inferencediffusion modelsdiversityquadratic integer programmingprogressive pruningtest-time scalingtext-to-image generationgenerative set selection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tries to establish that the way users actually consume generative models—as a grid of a few images per prompt—can be optimized directly. Instead of letting a diffusion model draw K samples independently, it draws M candidates, scores each with a quality measure and each pair with a diversity measure, and solves a small integer program to pick the best K. To keep this affordable, it prunes candidates early using the model's own intermediate predictions of the final image, which it argues are reliable previews. If true, this gives practitioners a way to spend a fixed test-time budget on more candidates rather than more denoising steps, with user studies showing a better diversity-quality tradeoff than low-CFG sampling, interval guidance, or particle guidance.

Core claim

The central claim is that group-level desiderata for diffusion outputs can be formulated as selection rather than resampling: draw M i.i.d. candidates, define a unary quality score u_i and a pairwise diversity score b_ij, and solve max over binary selection variables of sum u_i y_i plus lambda times sum b_ij y_i y_j, subject to selecting exactly K. The authors propose solving this quadratic integer program repeatedly during denoising, pruning the candidate set at each step according to scores computed on the estimated clean image x_hat_t = x_t + t·epsilon_theta(x_t, t, c), until K candidates remain and are denoised to completion. They report that progressive pruning takes O(M + K T) model ev

What carries the argument

The engine of the method is the quadratic integer program of Eq. 4: binary selection variables y_i, a unary term for individual quality (CLIP text-image similarity) and a binary term for pairwise diversity (one minus cosine similarity of DINOv2 features), balanced by a weighting lambda. The efficiency engine is the progressive pruning loop: at each denoising step the paper computes the estimated final image x_hat_t via Eq. 5, scores all current candidates on that preview, solves the same QIP, keeps a smaller subset, and repeats until K outputs remain. The preview x_hat_t is what makes large M practical, because it lets the method rank and drop candidates before they finish denoising.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that intermediate denoising predictions faithfully rank candidates the way the finished image would, so pruning early never discards the eventual best group; the paper demonstrates this correlation on a few image models, not as a general law of diffusion.

What would settle it

Compute the same Spearman correlations of unary and binary scores on intermediate previews x_hat_t versus final outputs x_0 for a model whose late denoising steps change object identity, layout, or color (for example, a multi-object text-to-video model or a one-step distilled model on compositional prompts). If the correlation drops below roughly 0.7 at the pruning steps, the pruning claim fails; equivalently, run full no-pruning selection and pruned selection on the same M candidates and check whether pruned groups match the Eq. 4 objective of the unpruned optimum.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • With a fixed compute budget, generating many candidates and selecting a group of K beats spending that budget on more denoising steps for K images; the combined score keeps improving as M grows from 4 to 128.
  • Progressive pruning removes 49%, 73%, and 55% of runtime across tested models without a measurable drop in the group objective, so group selection is usable under latency constraints.
  • Because the objective accepts non-differentiable scores, quality and diversity can be steered by swapping in arbitrary metrics—CLIP, DINO, color histograms, depth features—without retraining.
  • Across text-to-image, depth-conditioned generation, and image prompting, users preferred the selected groups over low-CFG, interval guidance, and particle guidance for both diversity and individual quality.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the method selects rather than generates, it cannot recover modes the base model never produces; a natural extension would be to re-weight the candidate proposal distribution before selection, so rare but desirable modes are more likely to appear in the pool.
  • Editorial inference: the same QIP-plus-preview framework could be applied to other set-selection problems with expensive candidates—multi-frame video, 3D views, or diverse training batches—though the paper demonstrates the intermediate-prediction correlation only for a few image models.
  • Editorial inference: if preview reliability varies by model, the fixed pruning ratio could be replaced by an adaptive schedule that delays dropping candidates until the intermediate-score correlation with final scores crosses a per-model threshold.
  • Editorial inference: the runtime breakdown suggests denoising forward passes dominate, so for very large M the practical bottleneck may shift to pairwise feature extraction; caching or approximate pairwise diversity could push M even higher.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Scalable Group Inference, a test-time method for generating a set of K diverse, high-quality outputs from M i.i.d. candidates. The selection is formulated as a quadratic integer program (Eq. 4) that maximizes a unary quality term (CLIP text-image similarity or DINO subject similarity) plus a pairwise diversity term (DINO distance), subject to selecting exactly K outputs. To avoid the O(MT) cost of denoising all candidates, the method progressively prunes candidates using intermediate predictions x̂_t = x_t + t·ε_θ(x_t,t,c) (Eq. 5), reducing complexity to O(M+KT). Experiments on FLUX.1 Dev, FLUX.1 Schnell, Stable Diffusion 3 Medium, FLUX.1 Depth, and SynCD show Pareto improvements over CFG sweeps, Interval Guidance, Particle Guidance, and Inference-time Scaling, supported by a 23,226-judgment user study, runtime measurements, and ablations. The abstract and introduction also claim generalization to video generation, but no video experiments appear in the paper.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a practical and conceptually clean approach to set-level generation: the QIP formulation is simple, model-agnostic, and accommodates non-differentiable scoring functions, while progressive pruning offers a substantial speedup. The paper is commendably thorough for the image-domain experiments: five base models, multiple tasks, a large user study, runtime breakdowns, and auxiliary off-objective metrics in Appendix Figure 17. The main reservations are that the video-generation claim is entirely unsupported, the pruning premise is validated only through Spearman correlations rather than direct top-K retention, and the primary scaling/pruning evaluations use the very objective being optimized. These issues are fixable but currently limit the strength of the central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §1, §4, §5] The abstract and introduction claim that the framework 'generalizes across ... video generation,' and this is listed as a contribution. However, Section 4 evaluates only text-to-image, depth-conditioned generation, and encoder-based image customization; no video experiment, no correlation measurement for video, and no pruning-retention check appear in the main text or appendices. Section 5's Limitations do not mention this omission. Because the video claim is part of the paper's advertised scope, this is a load-bearing evidence gap. Either remove the video claim from the abstract/contributions or add video experiments that validate at least the x̂_t ranking fidelity and the effect of progressive pruning for video models.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. 5, Fig. 3, Fig. 10] The efficiency claim O(M+KT) and the 'comparable group score' result in Figure 10 depend on the premise that scores computed on intermediate predictions x̂_t preserve the ranking (and, more strongly, the QIP-optimal subset) of the final outputs. The evidence offered is Spearman correlation between unary and binary scores on x̂_t and on x0 (Fig. 3 and Fig. 18). Spearman r > 0.7, even r > 0.95, does not by itself bound the probability that irreversible pruning drops members of the oracle top-K group, especially since the final K outputs are never re-ranked on finished images. Please add a direct validation: report the top-K overlap (or normalized objective gap) between the group selected from x̂_t and the QIP solution computed on x0, across timesteps, models, M, and K. Figure 10 is not sufficient because it compares group scores on the same optimized objective and only for image models.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. 2–4, Fig. 8, Fig. 10] A substantial part of the quantitative evidence is measured on the objective that the method optimizes. The unary score in Eq. 2 is the CLIP text-image similarity used as the quality metric, Eq. 3 is the DINO distance used as the diversity metric, and Figures 8 and 10 evaluate methods by the combined score in Eq. 4. Thus the runtime-scaling and pruning results are partly circular. The user study (Table 1) and the auxiliary metrics in Appendix Figure 17 (Image Reward, BLIP-2, depth/CLIP diversity) go some way to addressing this, but those external metrics are not used for the Fig. 8 runtime curves or the Fig. 10 pruning ablation. Please report the Fig. 17 style external metrics for the runtime-scaling and pruning comparisons, or clearly state which plots are by-construction relative to the optimized objective.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. 7–8] There appears to be an off-by-one in the complexity formula. For M=64, K=4, ρ=0.5, T=20, t*=4, Eq. 8 gives 64·(1−0.5^4)/0.5 + 4·(20−4+1) = 188, not the reported 184. The reported value is consistent with 64+32+16+8+4×16 = 184, i.e., the second term should be K·(T−t*), not K·(T−t*+1). Please correct the formula or clarify the counting convention.
  2. [Appendix C.1] Several hyperparameter values are typeset with unreadable placeholder glyphs (e.g., '�� ���', '���������'), making it impossible for the reader to recover the exact ρ values and guidance intervals from the text. Please fix the rendering.
  3. [Fig. 3] The correlation curves in Figure 3 are reported without error bars or the number of prompts averaged over, unlike the bootstrapped standard errors used elsewhere. Please specify the dataset size and add error bars or confidence bands.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Main runtime and scaling plots evaluate by the exact objective being optimized; independent user study and unseen-metric appendix prevent a higher score.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, Figure 8 (and Section 4.1 Score Functions vs. Eq. 4)]
    "In Figure 8, we illustrate the impact of various test-time scaling strategies on the group objective (defined in Equation 4), evaluated across various computational budgets. ... We use CLIP text-image similarity [47] to assess the quality of the individual samples (unary score) ... Diversity (binary score) is computed for all tasks as one minus the cosine similarity between the DINOv2 patchwise features of all image pairs in the output set."

    Equation 4 is exactly the group objective: sum of unary CLIP-style scores plus λ times pairwise DINO-style diversity over the selected K. Figure 8 then compares methods on this same objective, so a method that explicitly solves Eq. 4 (or an approximation of it) is, by construction, maximizing the metric used for comparison. The Pareto plots in Figures 5 and 6 similarly use CLIP similarity and DINO distance as the two axes, i.e., the same unary and binary terms. These plots therefore do not provide model-independent evidence of improved quality/diversity; they measure the method on its own target function. The independent evidence comes from the user study (Table 1) and from Appendix Figure 17, which uses metrics unseen by the method.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.3, Figure 9]
    "In contrast, our method invests in the inference budget to increase the number of initial samples. As depicted by the blue line in Figure 8, this approach produces consistent improvements in the combined group score. ... Figure 9 further shows the improvement in both the sample quality (measured with CLIP) and the set diversity (measured with DINO) as the number of initial starting samples is increased from 4 to 128."

    The 'combined group score' is Eq. 4. For fixed K and fixed score functions, the maximum of Eq. 4 is monotonically nondecreasing in the number of candidates M: every feasible selection from M candidates remains feasible when the candidate set is enlarged to M+1, and new selections are added. Hence the plotted improvement of the blue line is a mathematical consequence of the optimization formulation, not an empirical discovery about generation quality or diversity. The separate CLIP/DINO curves in Figure 9 are the components of that same objective, so they inherit the same by-construction bias rather than validating the quality or diversity scores against independent human judgments.

full rationale

The paper has two genuine by-construction evaluation artifacts. First, Figure 8 and the Pareto plots (Figures 5, 6) measure performance with the exact objective that the method maximizes (Eq. 4 with CLIP unary scores and DINO binary diversity); any selection method that optimizes this objective is expected to dominate non-optimizing baselines on those axes. Second, the claim that increasing the initial candidate count improves the combined score is a monotonicity property of the optimization problem, not an independent empirical result. These reduce part of the quantitative evidence to the method's own definition. However, the central claim does not rest only on those plots: the paper includes pairwise user preference studies (Table 1) and an appendix evaluation with Image Reward, BLIP-2, depth diversity, and CLIP diversity (Figure 17) that are not used by the selection objective. Those provide independent, non-circular support for the method's diversity/quality improvements. I find no load-bearing self-citation, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The lack of video experiments, despite the abstract's video claim, is an evidence/scope gap rather than a circularity, and Section 5 honestly flags the method's dependence on the initial candidate pool. Overall score 5: partial circularity in the headline quantitative comparisons, but with independent evidence preventing a higher score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two tuned hyperparameters (lambda, rho), two off-the-shelf score functions treated as ground truth, and the empirical premise that intermediate predictions rank candidates like final images. No new particles, forces, architectures, or conserved quantities are introduced; the preview x_hat_t is a derived quantity from the model itself, and the nested pruning schedule is a procedure, not an entity.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda (diversity weight, Eq. 4) = per-model values not legible in the extracted text; roughly 0.4 for FLUX.1 family and higher for SD3-M
    Balances unary quality against pairwise diversity in the selection objective; tuned per model and swept to draw the Pareto fronts in Figures 5 and 6.
  • rho (pruning ratio, Eq. 6) = 0.5 for FLUX.1 Dev, FLUX.1 Depth, SynCD; about 0.25 for FLUX.1 Schnell (partially garbled in extraction)
    Sets the fraction of candidates dropped per denoising step; calibrated per model via the ablation in Figure 14 and the correlation analysis in Figure 3.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Intermediate prediction x_hat_t = x_t + t times epsilon_theta(x_t, t, c) is a reliable proxy of the final image for unary and binary scoring.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 and Figure 3; legitimizes irreversible early pruning, but is verified only for the tested models (FLUX.1, SD3, SynCD) and not for video or one-step GAN-style generators.
  • domain assumption CLIP text-image similarity and DINOv2 patch distance are valid proxies for human-perceived quality and diversity.
    Used as u_i and b_ij in Eqs. 2 and 3; the headline gains are measured on these proxies, with partial external grounding from the AMT user study and unseen metrics.
  • standard math Solving the QIP in Eq. 4 with Gurobi at each pruning step is fast enough that solver time is negligible, and iterated greedy pruning approximates the global optimum.
    Figure 13 supports negligible solver cost; no proof is given that nested per-step selection recovers the globally optimal K-set, so this is an assumed approximation.
  • domain assumption The i.i.d. candidate pool from the base model contains enough high-quality, diverse samples for a good selection to exist.
    Stated limitation in Section 5 and Figure 12: if the base model mode-collapses (red Ferraris, black-and-white Einstein portraits), the method cannot produce diversity it never sees.
  • domain assumption Flow and diffusion denoising trajectories encode coarse final content early, so early previews predict final ranking.
    Underlies Eq. 5 and the correlation claims in Figure 3; standard for the model families used but not universally guaranteed across architectures.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Group Inference for Diverse and High-Quality Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KNKL2ZL2

@misc{pith2026250815773,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Group Inference for Diverse and High-Quality Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KNKL2ZL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15773}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Generative models typically sample outputs independently, and recent inference-time guidance and scaling algorithms focus on improving the quality of individual samples. However, in real-world applications, users are often presented with a set of multiple images (e.g., 4-8) for each prompt, where independent sampling tends to lead to redundant results, limiting user choices and hindering idea exploration. In this work, we introduce a scalable group inference method that improves both the diversity and quality of a group of samples. We formulate group inference as a quadratic integer assignment problem: candidate outputs are modeled as graph nodes, and a subset is selected to optimize sample quality (unary term) while maximizing group diversity (binary term). To substantially improve runtime efficiency, we progressively prune the candidate set using intermediate predictions, allowing our method to scale up to large candidate sets. Extensive experiments show that our method significantly improves group diversity and quality compared to independent sampling baselines and recent inference algorithms. Our framework generalizes across a wide range of tasks, including text-to-image, image-to-image, image prompting, and video generation, enabling generative models to treat multiple outputs as cohesive groups rather than independent samples.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Semantic Browsing: Controllable Diversity for Image Generation

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A technique for controllable diversity in text-to-image generation by inducing structured semantic variations at the prompt level via VLM and agentic workflow.

  2. STRIDE: Training-Free Diversity Guidance via PCA-Directed Feature Perturbation in Single-Step Diffusion Models

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    STRIDE boosts diversity in one-step diffusion models by injecting PCA-aligned pink noise into transformer features while preserving text alignment and quality.

  3. It's Never Too Late: Noise Optimization for Collapse Recovery in Trained Diffusion Models

    cs.CV 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Noise optimization during sampling recovers diversity in mode-collapsed diffusion models while preserving output fidelity.

  4. Manifold-Constrained Noise Optimization for Diverse Diffusion Sampling

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    By optimizing each new starting noise on a fixed-radius, low-frequency sphere, MoNO recovers per-prompt diversity in distilled text-to-image models while keeping image quality roughly stable.

  5. Don't Settle at the Mode! Mitigating Diversity Collapse in Pretrained Flow Models via Feature Self-Guidance

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Feature self-guidance disperses internal features of flow models during batch generation and applies manifold regularization to increase output diversity while preserving condition alignment.

  6. Composing People Together: Iterative Pose-Image Generation for Multi-Person Interaction Scenes

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Introduces dual pose-image representation, cross-modal alignment, and iterative construction to improve prompt alignment and diversity in multi-person text-to-image generation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    Inference-time scaling for diffusion models beyond scaling denoising steps

    Nanye Ma, Shangyuan Tong, Haolin Jia, Hexiang Hu, Yu-Chuan Su, Mingda Zhang, Xuan Yang, Yandong Li, Tommi Jaakkola, Xuhui Jia, and Saining Xie. Inference-time scaling for diffusion models beyond scaling denoising steps. 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Zero-shot image-to-image translation

    Gaurav Parmar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Richard Zhang, Yijun Li, Jingwan Lu, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Zero-shot image-to-image translation. InACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, pages 1–11, 2023. 13

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Midjourney Website.�������������������������������, 2024

    Midjourney, Inc. Midjourney Website.�������������������������������, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Adobe Firefly: Generative AI for Creatives.��������������������������������������� ����, 2025

    Adobe Inc. Adobe Firefly: Generative AI for Creatives.��������������������������������������� ����, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 2256–2265. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

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

    2020

  8. [8]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  9. [9]

    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. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    SDXL: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. SDXL: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Photorealistic text-to- image diffusion models with deep language understanding.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:36479–36494, 2022

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to- image diffusion models with deep language understanding.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:36479–36494, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Video diffusion models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:8633–8646, 2022

    Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Video diffusion models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:8633–8646, 2022

    2022

  13. [13]

    Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Huan Ling, Tim Dockhorn, Seung Wook Kim, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 22563–22575, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127, 2023

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Dominik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram V oleti, Adam Letts, et al. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming-Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 300–309, 2023

    2023

  17. [17]

    Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16512, 2023

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Mai Long, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16512, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Consistency-diversity-realism pareto fronts of conditional image generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10429, 2024

    Pietro Astolfi, Marlene Careil, Melissa Hall, Oscar Mañas, Matthew Muckley, Jakob Verbeek, Adri- ana Romero Soriano, and Michal Drozdzal. Consistency-diversity-realism pareto fronts of conditional image generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10429, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3836–3847, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    Ip-adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to-image diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06721, 2023

    Hu Ye, Jun Zhang, Sibo Liu, Xiao Han, and Wei Yang. Ip-adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to-image diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06721, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Fast high-resolution image synthesis with latent adversarial diffusion distillation

    Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, Tim Dockhorn, Andreas Blattmann, Patrick Esser, and Robin Rombach. Fast high-resolution image synthesis with latent adversarial diffusion distillation. InSIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–11, 2024

    2024

  22. [22]

    Adversarial diffusion distillation

    Axel Sauer, Dominik Lorenz, Andreas Blattmann, and Robin Rombach. Adversarial diffusion distillation. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 87–103. Springer, 2024. 14

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Distilling diffusion models into conditional gans

    Minguk Kang, Richard Zhang, Connelly Barnes, Sylvain Paris, Suha Kwak, Jaesik Park, Eli Shechtman, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Taesung Park. Distilling diffusion models into conditional gans. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 428–447. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation

    Tianwei Yin, Michaël Gharbi, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, Fredo Durand, William T Freeman, and Taesung Park. One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6613–6623, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Diffusion models beat GANs on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Quinn Nichol. Diffusion models beat GANs on image synthesis. In A. Beygelzimer, Y . Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Training-free layout control with cross-attention guidance

    Minghao Chen, Iro Laina, and Andrea Vedaldi. Training-free layout control with cross-attention guidance. InIEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Dense text-to-image generation with attention modulation

    Yunji Kim, Jiyoung Lee, Jin-Hwa Kim, Jung-Woo Ha, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Dense text-to-image generation with attention modulation. InIEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Grounded text-to-image synthesis with attention refocusing

    Quynh Phung, Songwei Ge, and Jia-Bin Huang. Grounded text-to-image synthesis with attention refocusing. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Sketch-guided text-to-image diffusion models

    Andrey V oynov, Kfir Aberman, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Sketch-guided text-to-image diffusion models. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 conference proceedings, 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Localized text-to-image generation for free via cross attention control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14636, 2023

    Yutong He, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and J Zico Kolter. Localized text-to-image generation for free via cross attention control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14636, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Applying guidance in a limited interval improves sample and distribution quality in diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07724, 2024

    Tuomas Kynkäänniemi, Miika Aittala, Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Timo Aila, and Jaakko Lehtinen. Applying guidance in a limited interval improves sample and distribution quality in diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07724, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Particle guidance: non-iid diverse sampling with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13102, 2023

    Gabriele Corso, Yilun Xu, Valentin De Bortoli, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. Particle guidance: non-iid diverse sampling with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13102, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  34. [34]

    Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03314, 2024

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03314, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    s1: Simple test-time scaling

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Svdqunat: Absorbing outliers by low-rank components for 4-bit diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05007, 2024

    Muyang Li, Yujun Lin, Zhekai Zhang, Tianle Cai, Xiuyu Li, Junxian Guo, Enze Xie, Chenlin Meng, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Song Han. Svdqunat: Absorbing outliers by low-rank components for 4-bit diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05007, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 1(2):3, 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, 1(2):3, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy V V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel HAZIZA, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual, 2025

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual, 2025

    2025

  40. [40]

    Flux.�����������������������������������������, 2024

    Black Forest Labs. Flux.�����������������������������������������, 2024

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Geneval: An object-focused framework for evaluating text-to-image alignment.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:52132–52152, 2023

    Dhruba Ghosh, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Ludwig Schmidt. Geneval: An object-focused framework for evaluating text-to-image alignment.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:52132–52152, 2023

    2023

  42. [42]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 740–755. Springer, 2014. 15

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    Dream- booth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dream- booth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 22500–22510, 2023

    2023

  44. [44]

    Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Xiaogang Xu, Jiashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth anything: Unleashing the power of large-scale unlabeled data. InCVPR, 2024

    2024

  45. [45]

    Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas Müller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. InForty-first international conference on machine learning, 2024

    2024

  46. [46]

    Generating multi-image synthetic data for text-to-image customization.ArXiv, 2025

    Nupur Kumari, Xi Yin, Jun-Yan Zhu, Ishan Misra, and Samaneh Azadi. Generating multi-image synthetic data for text-to-image customization.ArXiv, 2025

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    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 supervision. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  48. [48]

    Toward multimodal image-to-image translation.Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 30, 2017

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Richard Zhang, Deepak Pathak, Trevor Darrell, Alexei A Efros, Oliver Wang, and Eli Shechtman. Toward multimodal image-to-image translation.Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.11096, 2018

    Andrew Brock, Jeff Donahue, and Karen Simonyan. Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.11096, 2018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Tiny autoencoder for stable diffusion.Retrieved May, 22:2024, 2023

    Ollin Boer Bohan. Tiny autoencoder for stable diffusion.Retrieved May, 22:2024, 2023

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Imagereward: Learning and evaluating human preferences for text-to-image generation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:15903–15935, 2023

    Jiazheng Xu, Xiao Liu, Yuchen Wu, Yuxuan Tong, Qinkai Li, Ming Ding, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong. Imagereward: Learning and evaluating human preferences for text-to-image generation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:15903–15935, 2023

    2023

  52. [52]

    Depth anything v2.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:21875–21911, 2024

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Zhen Zhao, Xiaogang Xu, Jiashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth anything v2.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:21875–21911, 2024

    2024

  53. [53]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 19730–19742. PMLR, 2023. 16 Section B presents additional qualitative and quantitative results obtained by our method across multiple different ...

    work page 2023

  54. [200]

    Note that this baseline significantly increases the memory consumption during inference. Inference diffusion scaling [2].Figure 8 of the main paper shows a comparison to Inference Diffusion Scaling [2], a concurrent work, that shows an improvement in the quality of samples. We follow the results in their paper and use random search as the strategy. For a ...

    work page 2017

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.