Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 49 references

DaCFake claims 96-98% accuracy for fake news detection by dividing the problem into content and context analysis.

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 ↗

The abstract claims a new fake news detector with 97.88%, 96.05%, and 97.32% accuracy, but the manuscript body is a different paper on image inpainting protection.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The submission is two different papers stapled together: the abstract claims a 97% fake-news detector, the body is a diffusion-inpainting defense with a different author list; the claimed results are unverifiable as submitted. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.16223 v1 pith:BYOH7PXX submitted 2025-08-22 cs.SI cs.LG

Dac-Fake: A Divide and Conquer Framework for Detecting Fake News on Social Media

Mayank Kumar Jain , Dinesh Gopalani , Yogesh Kumar Meena , Nishant Jain This is my paper
classification cs.SI cs.LG
keywords fake news detectionsocial mediadivide and conquerlinguistic featuresword embeddingsmisinformationcross-validation
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

This paper introduces DaCFake, a fake news detection model that splits detection into content-based and context-based analysis. It claims that combining more than eighty linguistic features with either a continuous bag-of-words or a skip-gram embedding yields 97.88%, 96.05%, and 97.32% accuracy on the Kaggle, McIntire+PolitiFact, and Reuters datasets, results validated by ten-fold cross-validation. If these results hold, automated detection could flag misinformation early, before slow manual fact-checking can respond. The submitted full text of the manuscript does not, however, contain the DaCFake method or experiments; it is a different paper on diffusion-based image inpainting defense, so the claims currently rest on the abstract alone.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that fake news detection is best handled by dividing the problem: analyzing the news content's style (linguistic features) and its context (social media cues) separately, then combining them. The abstract states that DaCFake extracts over eighty linguistic features and integrates them with a continuous bag-of-words or skip-gram model, with reported accuracies of 97.88%, 96.05%, and 97.32% on the Kaggle, McIntire+PolitiFact, and Reuters datasets respectively, under ten-fold cross-validation. The argument is that such a strategy is fast enough to catch misinformation before it spreads. A fair reader must note that the body text submitted with this abstract is

What carries the argument

The central object is the divide and conquer classifier: content-based features (eighty-plus linguistic features) are combined with context-based features via either a continuous bag-of-words or a skip-gram embedding, presumably capturing stylistic markers of fabricated text plus signals of how posts are shared and reacted to. The abstract presents this fusion as the mechanism that yields near-97% detection accuracy. The ten-fold cross-validation protocol is the stated safeguard for robustness. Because the full text is missing, the actual architecture, feature definitions, and data splits are not in view.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the submitted full text is the DaCFake manuscript; the body is actually an unrelated diffusion-inpainting paper, so the claimed method, its implementation, and its evaluation cannot be checked.

What would settle it

Read the body of the submitted paper: it does not describe DaCFake, any eighty linguistic features, or the Kaggle, McIntire+PolitiFact, and Reuters experiments, so the abstract's claim to present DaCFake is immediately refuted by the manuscript text. For the accuracy claim itself, re-running the ten-fold cross-validation on those three datasets with the described model (once the method is available) would confirm or disprove the stated rates.

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

If this is right

  • If the accuracy figures are correct, automated systems could flag misinformation within minutes of publication, before fact-checkers typically weigh in.
  • The content/context divide could serve as a reusable design pattern for fake news detection on other social platforms or in other languages.
  • The reported ten-fold cross-validation suggests the accuracy holds across random splits of the same datasets, meaning the model is not tuned to one specific test partition.
  • A word-embedding integration with linguistic features may make the method applicable to short posts and headlines, not just full articles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A reader cannot currently verify any of the abstract's claims: the methods, feature definitions, datasets, and evaluation tables must be recovered before the reported accuracies can be treated as evidence.
  • If the approach is validated, the same divide-and-conquer design could be extended to multimodal misinformation, where text claims are checked against images, video, or memes.
  • The reported 96-98% accuracy, even if reproducible in the original benchmarks, should be tested against temporally newer posts or platform shifts to assess real-world early-detection value, since such benchmarks often reflect stable labeling conventions.
  • The mismatch between the abstract and the full text itself is a direct test of the paper's integrity: the submitted body provides no supporting material for the DaCFake framework.
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 / 2 minor

Summary. The submission's abstract announces DaCFake, a divide-and-conquer fake news detection model that combines over eighty linguistic features with CBOW or skipgram embeddings, and reports ten-fold cross-validated accuracies of 97.88% on Kaggle, 96.05% on McIntire + PolitiFact, and 97.32% on Reuter. The full text, however, is an unrelated manuscript titled 'PromptFlare: Prompt-Generalized Defense via Cross-Attention Decoy in Diffusion-Based Inpainting,' by different authors, with its own abstract, CCS concepts, ACM Reference Format (MM '25), and arXiv footer identifying it as arXiv:2508.16217v1. None of the DaCFake content appears in the body: there is no divide-and-conquer framework, no linguistic feature set, no CBOW/skipgram model, no dataset description, no ten-fold cross-validation protocol, and no result tables for fake news detection. The manuscript therefore does not contain the research it claims to present, and the central accuracy claims are unverifiable from the submitted text.

Significance. If the DaCFake claims were properly supported, results of 97%+ accuracy across three standard fake-news datasets would be a meaningful contribution to the field, particularly given the interest in early automated detection. The divide-and-conquer combination of content and context features is also a plausible design direction. However, the significance cannot be assessed because the submission completely fails the basic precondition for review: the body is a different paper. The PromptFlare text may itself be a competent contribution to adversarial defense for diffusion inpainting, but it is not the research described in the abstract, and it is not the subject of this submission's claims. No amount of statistical re-analysis of the abstract can repair this mismatch; the claimed results have no supporting methods or evidence in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. Full Text (title, authors, ACM Reference Format, arXiv footer)] The central claim of this submission is the DaCFake accuracy figures, but the full text is PromptFlare, an unrelated paper on diffusion-based inpainting defense. The title, author list, abstract, CCS concepts, ACM reference (MM '25, DOI 10.1145/3746027.3755763), and arXiv footer (2508.16217v1) all concern PromptFlare. A search of the full text for 'DaCFake', 'divide and conquer', 'linguistic', 'CBOW', 'skipgram', 'Kaggle', 'PolitiFact', 'Reuter', and 'ten-fold' returns no matches. The manuscript as submitted does not describe the model, datasets, or evaluation protocol for which the abstract claims 97.88/96.05/97.32% accuracy. This is an internal inconsistency that cannot be fixed by revision; it requires a different manuscript.
  2. [Section 4 (Method) and Section 5 (Experiments)] The method and experiments in the full text are entirely about cross-attention decoys and EditBench evaluation for PromptFlare. There is no divide-and-conquer strategy, no eighty linguistic features, no CBOW/skipgram integration, and no ten-fold cross-validation. Consequently, the claimed accuracies are unsupported by any derivable procedure or result. The abstract's 'impressive accuracy rates' are therefore not an evaluated finding but an isolated assertion, with no way to check for data leakage, baseline comparisons, variance, or statistical significance.
  3. [Entire submission (absence of DaCFake results)] The precondition for refereeing this submission is that the manuscript describes the research in the abstract. That precondition is violated. Unlike a disagreement with current consensus or a questionable evaluation protocol, this is a fundamental failure of content: the authors' own full text confirms it is a different paper. The situation is not amenable to correction within the scope of a standard revision, as the entire DaCFake method, datasets, and experimental analysis would need to be supplied.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Throughout the PromptFlare text] If the PromptFlare paper is intended for separate submission, it contains several typographical errors: 'Figire' (Sec. 5.3), 'Qualititive' (Appendix C.9 caption), 'Inapinting' (Table 4 caption), and 'malcious' (Appendix C.5). These are minor and do not affect the main assessment, which is the abstract/body mismatch.
  2. [ACM Reference Format] The ACM Reference Format lists 23 pages for the MM '25 paper, while the submitted text is a preprint with supplementary material. This is not a substantive issue but adds to the impression that the submission is a different document from the one described in the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the DaCFake abstract reports ten-fold CV accuracies without any fitted-to-prediction derivation; the submitted body is an unrelated PromptFlare paper whose only self-citation is a non-load-bearing baseline.

full rationale

The DaCFake abstract is the only part of the submission that concerns the claimed fake-news detector. It states that the model 'extracts over eighty linguistic features' and is evaluated 'on three datasets' with 'ten-fold cross validation,' reporting accuracies of 97.88%, 96.05%, and 97.32%. Nothing in the abstract defines a parameter in terms of the reported accuracy or fits a model to a subset and then predicts a closely related quantity; a ten-fold CV protocol, if carried out as stated, is held-out evaluation rather than a construction that forces the reported numbers. The full text supplied is actually PromptFlare (arXiv:2508.16217v1), a diffusion-inpainting defense, not DaCFake. That mismatch makes the DaCFake claim unverifiable from the submitted text, but unverifiability is not circularity: there is no derivation chain to reduce. Within the PromptFlare body, the objective function (Eq. 11) minimizes the difference between cross-attention outputs with and without the BOS mask, and Eq. 12 optimizes it; the BOS-token property is an observation about CLIP embeddings, and the method is evaluated externally on EditBench against PhotoGuard, DDD, DiffusionGuard, AdvPaint, and Oracle. The only self-citation in scope is DDD [31], which includes co-author Simon S. Woo; it is used as a baseline for comparison, not as the justification for PromptFlare's design or for any uniqueness claim, so it is not load-bearing. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted and demonstrated; the score reflects only the presence of a minor non-load-bearing self-citation in the body, not circularity in the DaCFake claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract alone introduces no new entities; the assumptions listed are domain assumptions about benchmark validity and evaluation methodology.

free parameters (2)
  • linguistic feature set
    The abstract claims over eighty linguistic features but does not list them; the choice of features is a design input to the accuracy results.
  • embedding model choice (CBOW vs skipgram)
    The abstract says DaCFake integrates with either a continuous bag of words or a skipgram model; the selected variant and its hyperparameters affect reported accuracy.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Kaggle, McIntire+PolitiFact, and Reuter datasets are correctly labeled and representative of fake news on social media.
    The abstract's accuracy claims presuppose that high accuracy on these benchmarks translates to effectiveness; the datasets and labels are not described.
  • domain assumption Ten-fold cross-validation is an unbiased estimate of generalization for this model.
    The abstract uses ten-fold cross-validation as evidence of robustness, which assumes standard i.i.d. splitting is appropriate for the data.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dac-Fake: A Divide and Conquer Framework for Detecting Fake News on Social Media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BYOH7PXX

@misc{pith2026250816223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dac-Fake: A Divide and Conquer Framework for Detecting Fake News on Social Media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BYOH7PXX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16223}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

With the rapid evolution of technology and the Internet, the proliferation of fake news on social media has become a critical issue, leading to widespread misinformation that can cause societal harm. Traditional fact checking methods are often too slow to prevent the dissemination of false information. Therefore, the need for rapid, automated detection of fake news is paramount. We introduce DaCFake, a novel fake news detection model using a divide and conquer strategy that combines content and context based features. Our approach extracts over eighty linguistic features from news articles and integrates them with either a continuous bag of words or a skipgram model for enhanced detection accuracy. We evaluated the performance of DaCFake on three datasets including Kaggle, McIntire + PolitiFact, and Reuter achieving impressive accuracy rates of 97.88%, 96.05%, and 97.32%, respectively. Additionally, we employed a ten-fold cross validation to further enhance the model's robustness and accuracy. These results highlight the effectiveness of DaCFake in early detection of fake news, offering a promising solution to curb misinformation on social media platforms.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al . 2023. Improving im- age generation with better captions. Computer Science. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf 2, 3 (2023), 8

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Battista Biggio, Igino Corona, Davide Maiorca, Blaine Nelson, Nedim Šrndić, Pavel Laskov, Giorgio Giacinto, and Fabio Roli. 2013. Evasion attacks against machine learning at test time. In Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases: European conference, ECML pKDD 2013, prague, czech Republic, September 23-27, 2013, proceedings, part III 13 . Spr...

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. 2023. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 18392–18402

    2023

  4. [4]

    June Suk Choi, Kyungmin Lee, Jongheon Jeong, Saining Xie, Jinwoo Shin, and Kimin Lee. 2024. DiffusionGuard: A Robust Defense Against Malicious Diffusion- based Image Editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05694 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

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

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2014. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572 (2014)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2021. Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08718 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

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

    2020

  11. [11]

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. 2022. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Heng Huang, Xin Jin, Yaqi Liu, Hao Lou, Chaoen Xiao, Shuai Cui, Xining Li, and Dongqing Zou. 2024. Predicting Scores of Various Aesthetic Attribute Sets by Learning from Overall Score Labels. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Multimedia Content Generation and Evaluation: New Methods and Practice. 63–71

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Joonsung Jeon, Woo Jae Kim, Suhyeon Ha, Sooel Son, and Sung-eui Yoon. 2025. AdvPaint: Protecting Images from Inpainting Manipulation via Adversarial At- tention Disruption. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10081 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Yuval Kirstain, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Shahbuland Matiana, Joe Penna, and Omer Levy. 2023. Pick-a-pic: An open dataset of user preferences for text-to- image generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 36652–36663

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Alexey Kurakin, Ian J Goodfellow, and Samy Bengio. 2018. Adversarial examples in the physical world. In Artificial intelligence safety and security . Chapman and Hall/CRC, 99–112

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Changjiang Li, Li Wang, Shouling Ji, Xuhong Zhang, Zhaohan Xi, Shanqing Guo, and Ting Wang. 2022. Seeing is living? rethinking the security of facial liveness verification in the deepfake era. In 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22). 2673–2690

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Senmao Li, Joost van de Weijer, Taihang Hu, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Qibin Hou, Yaxing Wang, and Jian Yang. 2024. Get What You Want, Not What You Don’t: Image Content Suppression for Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05375 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Chumeng Liang and Xiaoyu Wu. 2023. Mist: Towards improved adversarial examples for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12683 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Chumeng Liang, Xiaoyu Wu, Yang Hua, Jiaru Zhang, Yiming Xue, Tao Song, Zhengui Xue, Ruhui Ma, and Haibing Guan. 2023. Adversarial example does good: Preventing painting imitation from diffusion models via adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04578 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. 2017. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06083 (2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jiajun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. 2021. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2023. Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 6038–6047

    2023

  23. [23]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning . PmLR, 8748–8763

    2021

  24. [24]

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen

  25. [25]

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

    2022

  26. [26]

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

    2022

  27. [27]

    Hadi Salman, Alaa Khaddaj, Guillaume Leclerc, Andrew Ilyas, and Aleksander Mądry. 2023. Raising the cost of malicious AI-powered image editing. In Proceed- ings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning . 29894–29918

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

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

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Shawn Shan, Jenna Cryan, Emily Wenger, Haitao Zheng, Rana Hanocka, and Ben Y Zhao. 2023. Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by {Text-to- Image} models. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) . 2187– 2204

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

  31. [31]

    Geonho Son, Juhun Lee, and Simon S Woo. 2024. Disrupting Diffusion-based Inpainters with Semantic Digression. In IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 7735–7743

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. 2020. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199 (2013)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Raphael Tang, Linqing Liu, Akshat Pandey, Zhiying Jiang, Gefei Yang, Karun Kumar, Pontus Stenetorp, Jimmy Lin, and Ferhan Ture. 2023. What the DAAM: Interpreting Stable Diffusion Using Cross Attention. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.310

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Shahroz Tariq, Alsharif Abuadbba, and Kristen Moore. 2023. Deepfake in the metaverse: Security implications for virtual gaming, meetings, and offices. InPro- ceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Security Implications of Deepfakes and Cheapfakes. 16–19

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Aaron Van Den Oord, Oriol Vinyals, et al. 2017. Neural discrete representation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Bram Wallace, Akash Gokul, and Nikhil Naik. 2023. Edict: Exact diffusion inver- sion via coupled transformations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 22532–22541

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Gregory K Wallace. 1991. The JPEG still picture compression standard. Commun. ACM 34, 4 (1991), 30–44

    work page 1991

  39. [39]

    Su Wang, Chitwan Saharia, Ceslee Montgomery, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Shai Noy, Stefano Pellegrini, Yasumasa Onoe, Sarah Laszlo, David J Fleet, Radu Soricut, et al. 2023. Imagen editor and editbench: Advancing and evaluating text-guided image inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 18359–18369

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing 13, 4 (2004), 600–612

    2004

  41. [41]

    Yuxin Wen, Neel Jain, John Kirchenbauer, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. 2023. Hard prompts made easy: Gradient-based discrete optimiza- tion for prompt tuning and discovery. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 51008–51025. �� ���� ������� ������ ����� ������� ������� ������ ��� �������� ����� ��� ����� �� ���

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Shaoan Xie, Zhifei Zhang, Zhe Lin, Tobias Hinz, and Kun Zhang. 2023. Smart- Brush: Text and Shape Guided Object Inpainting With Diffusion Model. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 22428–22437

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Haotian Xue, Chumeng Liang, Xiaoyu Wu, and Yongxin Chen. [n. d.]. Toward effective protection against diffusion-based mimicry through score distillation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page

  44. [44]

    Jiraphon Yenphraphai, Xichen Pan, Sainan Liu, Daniele Panozzo, and Saining Xie. 2024. Image sculpting: Precise object editing with 3d geometry control. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 4241–4251

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Lvmin Zhang. 2023. AdverseCleaner. https://github.com/lllyasviel/ AdverseCleaner

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang

  47. [2015]

    In International conference on machine learning

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International conference on machine learning . pmlr, 2256–2265

    work page

  48. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 586–595. ������������ ������������������ ������� ��� �������������� ����� �� �������������� ���������� �� ���� ������� ������ ����� ������� ������� Supplementary Material A Dataset ����� ���� ����������...

    work page 1972

  49. [2022]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125 1, 2 (2022), 3

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

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