Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

CompSlider: Compositional Slider for Disentangled Multiple-Attribute Image Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single forward pass can drive multiple attribute sliders in text-to-image generation without retraining the foundation model.

desk verdict CompSlider is a genuinely new and clever approach to multi-attribute slider control, but the empirical support is thinner than the method deserves, and the key open risk is whether generated conditions stay on the CLIP manifold for slider combinations never seen in training. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01028 v2 pith:R7S7BJ6E submitted 2025-08-31 cs.CV

Zixin Zhu , Kevin Duarte , Mamshad Nayeem Rizve , Chengyuan Xu , Ratheesh Kalarot , Junsong Yuan This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords text-to-imagegenerationslider-basedcontrolattributedisentanglementconditionalpriorsdiffusiontransformermulti-attributestructuralconsistencyvideo
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

CompSlider is built to solve a specific failure of slider-based text-to-image control: when users move several attribute sliders at once (age, smile, style), the adjustments interfere with one another and the image structure drifts. The paper's claim is that a single, small model can replace the CLIP-encoded source-image condition in a frozen T2I foundation model, taking text plus a set of slider values and emitting the image-condition vector the foundation model needs. Two added losses—one that forces the generated condition to encode the direction of random slider perturbations, and one that keeps the condition stable for small slider changes—are what the paper argues disentangles the attributes and preserves identity without paired training data. If this works, multi-attribute slider control becomes a one-forward-pass operation on existing generation models, including video models that consume the same condition type.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditional prior: the 1024-dimensional image condition vector c^I that a pre-trained T2I foundation model (eDiff-I-style) expects, normally obtained by CLIP-encoding a source image. CompSlider replaces that source-image pathway with a Diffusion Transformer that, given T5 text tokens and positional-plus-learnable embeddings of N slider values, denoises a noisy condition into a clean c^I via a reparameterized diffusion loss that predicts the clean vector directly. Around this core, the disentanglement loss concatenates the conditions generated from real and randomly sampled slider values and trains an MLP classifier to recover the per-attribute signed differences (qu

What would settle it

Generate images with a slider combination far outside the training distribution, e.g., age = +1.0 and smile = -1.0 together, and measure both the Fréchet distance of the resulting c^I vectors to real CLIP image embeddings and the face-identity consistency across slider values. If the conditions drift off the CLIP manifold (large Fréchet distance) or the image shows artifacts or an identity change, the diffusion loss did not keep the generated prior on-manifold for unseen combinations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CompSlider is a Diffusion Transformer that maps text tokens plus a set of slider values to a 1024-dimensional image condition c^I, replacing the CLIP-encoded source image in a pre-trained T2I foundation model. Trained with a diffusion loss on real image conditions, plus a disentanglement loss that forces a classifier to recover the direction of random slider perturbations from the generated condition, and a structure loss that keeps conditions close when slider deltas are small, the model produces conditions that drive the frozen foundation model to render all requested attributes simultaneously with less entanglement and better identity preservation than single-attribute adapters. No paired

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a diffusion loss on real CLIP image embeddings is enough to keep every generated condition on the manifold the frozen T2I model understands, even for slider combinations never seen in training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All N attribute sliders are handled in a single forward pass of CompSlider; the T2I foundation model is frozen, so training and inference costs do not scale with the number of attributes.
  • Each slider keeps its own value: users can raise age while lowering smile at the same time, something neither per-attribute adapters nor equal-value PromptSlider allow.
  • No paired data of the same subject with different attribute levels is needed; random attribute combinations plus recoverability replace it.
  • The same trained model covers emotive, hair-color, pose, style, and scene-complexity sliders, including local and global changes.
  • Because video foundation models accept CLIP image tokens as conditioning, the same conditional-prior mechanism transfers to text-to-video generation, as the paper demonstrates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the conditional-prior machinery is the real source of control, any future T2I or T2V model that takes a CLIP-style image embedding should become slider-controllable through the same recipe, without exposing the model's internals.
  • The global 0.1 structure-loss threshold is a knob: the paper's own ablation shows raising it improves identity at the cost of scope; per-attribute thresholds would likely give a better identity/scope trade-off than the single value used.
  • The disentanglement loss assumes co-occurrence bias in the training data is the only source of attribute entanglement; attributes that are causally linked in the world (e.g., age and gray hair) may resist full independence no matter how random the sampled combinations are.
  • The discrete-bucket classifier could be replaced by a continuous contrastive or flow-matching objective on the condition manifold, which would remove the bucket-count hyperparameter and possibly improve smoothness of slider interpolation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses multi-attribute slider control in text-to-image generation. It proposes CompSlider, a Diffusion Transformer (DiT) that predicts a CLIP image-embedding condition vector from a text prompt and a set of continuous slider values. This predicted condition is fed into a frozen T2I foundation model, replacing the source-image CLIP condition. Training uses three losses: a diffusion loss on real image-text pairs (Eq. 6), a disentanglement loss (Eqs. 7–9) that trains an MLP to recover differences between real and randomly sampled slider values from the generated conditions, and a structure loss (Eq. 10) that regularizes the conditions for small slider changes. Experiments cover 16 sliders, human-related metrics using DeepFace, a small A/B user study for non-human sliders, ablations, and an extension to video.

Significance. If the approach holds, it offers a scalable way to control multiple attributes simultaneously with a single forward pass and no foundation-model fine-tuning, using unpaired data. The paper's strengths include a clearly specified architecture, external evaluation via DeepFace for human-related sliders, and ablations showing each loss contributes. The main contributions—disentanglement loss and structure loss—are simple and potentially useful. However, the evidence is currently insufficient on two fronts: the training objective does not demonstrably keep generated conditions on the manifold expected by the frozen foundation model, and the quantitative comparisons lack statistical rigor. The core idea is plausible and worth further validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (6)–(9)] The diffusion loss L_diff is applied only to slider values v_S extracted from real images. For randomly sampled v_S*, the only supervision is the disentanglement loss L_clss and the structure loss L_st. L_clss is minimized by any encoding that lets the jointly trained MLP M decode slider differences; it does not require DiT(cS*) to lie on the real CLIP-image-embedding manifold. Since inference allows arbitrary slider combinations, many of which are never in the training set, the generated condition may drift off-manifold and the frozen foundation model may produce artifacts or entangled changes. Please add quantitative evidence that generated conditions for random/OOD slider values stay close to the real cI distribution (e.g., FID/MMD between generated and real CLIP embeddings) and evaluate quality at extreme/unseen slider combinations.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 4.1; Supplementary Sec. 12] The paper acknowledges that each method uses a different foundation model, reducing comparability. More importantly, all reported numbers are point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests; the user study involved about seven participants. The superiority claims for continuity, consistency, scope, and entanglement are therefore not statistically grounded. Please provide per-prompt variance, repeated-seed runs, and significance tests (or at least bootstrap CIs) for Table 1, and expand the user study or report confidence intervals.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (7)] The disentanglement loss is self-referential in the sense that the MLP M is trained on the same generated conditions it is asked to decode. While the final human-related evaluation uses external DeepFace classifiers, the loss itself does not guarantee that the recovered slider differences correspond to semantically meaningful image attributes in the frozen foundation model. A simple linear code could satisfy Eq. (9) without producing the intended visual effect. The paper should demonstrate, beyond the current metrics, that the learned directions in cI space align with the foundational model's interpretation of the attributes (e.g., via cross-attention or intervention studies).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'enbale' should be 'enable'.
  2. [Eq. (7) and surrounding text] Please clarify the exact input/output of the MLP M: how the concatenated DiT outputs are projected to B logits, and whether gradients from L_clss flow through both DiT outputs and M. The text says L_clss is applied to both, but Eq. (9) only shows the cross-entropy term.
  3. [Section 3.2 / Supplementary Table 4] The threshold for the structure loss and the number of buckets B are free parameters. Only the threshold is ablated; please report sensitivity to B and to the distribution used for random slider sampling.
  4. [Implementation Details] The foundation model is described as eDiff-I-like but appears proprietary. Please state whether code or model weights will be released; otherwise reproducibility is limited.
  5. [Table 1] The abbreviations Cont.%, Cons.%, Scope%, Entang.% are used in the table but defined only later in the text. Define them in the caption or immediately before the table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is tested with an external classifier and user study; the disentanglement loss is a training objective, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

CompSlider's derivation chain is self-contained. Slider values are extracted from real images by attribute classifiers, and the diffusion loss (Eq. 6) trains the DiT to map these values to ground-truth CLIP image conditions. Random slider combinations are trained with the disentanglement loss (Eqs. 7-9) and structure loss (Eq. 10), which are regularization objectives, not claims that a fitted value is a prediction. The central evaluation uses DeepFace, which the paper explicitly states is not the pre-trained attribute classifier used in training, plus a user study; therefore quantitative success is not enforced by construction. The disentanglement loss trains an MLP to decode slider differences from generated conditions, which is a self-referential training objective, but the paper does not report this MLP as a metric or equate it with its entanglement metric. Any risk that randomly sampled slider combinations produce off-manifold image conditions is a robustness/correctness concern, not a circularity: the paper makes no formal guarantee of manifold membership. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-by-citation steps were found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of classifier-derived attribute scores, the expressiveness of the CLIP latent manifold, and the feasibility of random attribute sampling; none of these are proven, and each is a design choice of the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • structure loss threshold = 0.1
    Selected via ablation search (Supplementary Tab.4); controls structure-consistency vs controllability trade-off.
  • number of buckets B = 20
    Discretization granularity for slider differences in disentanglement loss (Section 3.2).
  • slider value sampling distribution = Uniform [0,1]^N
    Random attribute combinations are drawn uniformly during training; this ignores natural attribute correlations (Section 3.2).
  • attribute classifier choice = Fine-tuned ResNet models
    Slider definitions and training labels depend on the chosen classifiers (Section 4, Implementation Details).
  • set of 16 sliders = 16 attribute sliders
    The closed attribute set is a design choice; results may not generalize to other attributes (Supplementary Section 7).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Attribute classifier scores are valid proxies for attribute presence
    Slider values are extracted from fine-tuned ResNet classifiers (Section 3.1); if these scores are noisy or entangled, the training and evaluation results are unreliable.
  • domain assumption The foundation model can be conditioned on arbitrary synthesized image-condition vectors
    CompSlider replaces the CLIP encoder output with a generated vector and assumes the T2I model stays well-behaved on these vectors (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The diffusion loss keeps generated conditions on the CLIP embedding manifold
    Eq. (6) trains the DiT to match original CLIP embeddings; at inference, especially for random attribute combos, off-manifold conditions may occur (Section 3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Uniformly random attribute combinations are valid training targets
    The disentanglement loss samples slider values uniformly in [0,1]^N, including implausible combinations, with no mechanism to reject infeasible inputs (Section 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CompSlider: Compositional Slider for Disentangled Multiple-Attribute Image Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R7S7BJ6E

@misc{pith2026250901028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CompSlider: Compositional Slider for Disentangled Multiple-Attribute Image Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R7S7BJ6E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01028}
}
read the original abstract

In text-to-image (T2I) generation, achieving fine-grained control over attributes - such as age or smile - remains challenging, even with detailed text prompts. Slider-based methods offer a solution for precise control of image attributes. Existing approaches typically train individual adapter for each attribute separately, overlooking the entanglement among multiple attributes. As a result, interference occurs among different attributes, preventing precise control of multiple attributes together. To address this challenge, we aim to disentangle multiple attributes in slider-based generation to enbale more reliable and independent attribute manipulation. Our approach, CompSlider, can generate a conditional prior for the T2I foundation model to control multiple attributes simultaneously. Furthermore, we introduce novel disentanglement and structure losses to compose multiple attribute changes while maintaining structural consistency within the image. Since CompSlider operates in the latent space of the conditional prior and does not require retraining the foundation model, it reduces the computational burden for both training and inference. We evaluate our approach on a variety of image attributes and highlight its generality by extending to video generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01028 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Illustration of slider-based generation: text defines the primary object, while sliders enable continuous control over specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Entanglement in the previous method [15] cause a fixed smile value to produce varying smile intensities depending on slider order; applying the smile slider before the age slider yields a young person with a closed smile, while the reverse order results in an open smile. The direction of the arrows indicates the sequen￾tial addition of control signals, while text and sliders shown below the images denote the corresp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In the foundation model, image conditions extracted us [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The training process of our CompSlider. attributes, c T are the T5 text tokens derived from image captions that define the objects in the generated image. 3.1. CompSlider We employ a Diffusion Transformer (DiT) model [38] as our CompSlider, applying the reparameterizat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples illustrating the effectiveness of the disentan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative Comparison for human-related and non-human sliders. Our results demonstrates better continuity and stronger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Combinations of different sliders. The Yaw Rotation and Pitch Rotation sliders control the human’s horizontal and vertical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative results of simultaneous multi-attribute ma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Applying our image slider conditional priors to a video [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cross attention in the foundational model between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Interface for our A/B test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Slider generation results for “Red Hair”, “Blond Hair”, and “Yaw Rotation”. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Slider generation results for “Pitch Rotation”, “Vector Style”, and “Complexity”. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images

    Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. In CVPR, pages 18208–18218, 2022. 3

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Spatext: Spatio-textual representation for con- trollable image generation

    Omri Avrahami, Thomas Hayes, Oran Gafni, Sonal Gupta, Yaniv Taigman, Devi Parikh, Dani Lischinski, Ohad Fried, and Xi Yin. Spatext: Spatio-textual representation for con- trollable image generation. In CVPR, pages 18370–18380,

    work page

  3. [3]

    ediff-i: Text-to-image dif- fusion models with an ensemble of expert denoisers

    Yogesh Balaji, Seungjun Nah, Xun Huang, Arash Vahdat, Ji- aming Song, Qinsheng Zhang, Karsten Kreis, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, Samuli Laine, et al. ediff-i: Text-to-image dif- fusion models with an ensemble of expert denoisers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01324, 2022. 2, 3

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Multidiffusion: Fusing diffusion paths for controlled image generation

    Omer Bar-Tal, Lior Yariv, Yaron Lipman, and Tali Dekel. Multidiffusion: Fusing diffusion paths for controlled image generation. 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Masksketch: Unpaired structure-guided masked image generation

    Dina Bashkirova, Jose Lezama, Kihyuk Sohn, Kate Saenko, and Irfan Essa. Masksketch: Unpaired structure-guided masked image generation. In CVPR, pages 1879–1889,

    work page

  6. [6]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In CVPR, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 2, 3

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Exploring the capability of text-to-image diffusion models with structural edge guidance for multi-spectral satellite image inpainting

    Mikolaj Czerkawski and Christos Tachtatzis. Exploring the capability of text-to-image diffusion models with structural edge guidance for multi-spectral satellite image inpainting. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Diffusion mod- els beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion mod- els beat gans on image synthesis. NeurIPS, 34:8780–8794,

    work page

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Cogview2: Faster and better text-to-image generation via hi- erarchical transformers

    Ming Ding, Wendi Zheng, Wenyi Hong, and Jie Tang. Cogview2: Faster and better text-to-image generation via hi- erarchical transformers. NeurIPS, 35:16890–16902, 2022. 1

    2022

  2. [10]

    Diffusion self-guidance for control- lable image generation

    Dave Epstein, Allan Jabri, Ben Poole, Alexei Efros, and Aleksander Holynski. Diffusion self-guidance for control- lable image generation. NeurIPS, 36:16222–16239, 2023. 3

    2023

  3. [11]

    Benchmarking large and small mllms

    Xuelu Feng, Yunsheng Li, Dongdong Chen, Mei Gao, Mengchen Liu, Junsong Yuan, and Chunming Qiao. Benchmarking large and small mllms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04150, 2025. 1

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Promptmagician: Interactive prompt engineering for text-to-image creation

    Yingchaojie Feng, Xingbo Wang, Kam Kwai Wong, Sijia Wang, Yuhong Lu, Minfeng Zhu, Baicheng Wang, and Wei Chen. Promptmagician: Interactive prompt engineering for text-to-image creation. IEEE TVCG, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [13]

    Make-a-scene: Scene- based text-to-image generation with human priors

    Oran Gafni, Adam Polyak, Oron Ashual, Shelly Sheynin, Devi Parikh, and Yaniv Taigman. Make-a-scene: Scene- based text-to-image generation with human priors. InECCV, pages 89–106. Springer, 2022. 3

    2022

  6. [14]

    An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patash- nik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen- Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Concept sliders: Lora adap- tors for precise control in diffusion models

    Rohit Gandikota, Joanna Materzynska, Tingrui Zhou, Anto- nio Torralba, and David Bau. Concept sliders: Lora adap- tors for precise control in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12092, 2023. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Instructdiffusion: A generalist modeling inter- face for vision tasks

    Zigang Geng, Binxin Yang, Tiankai Hang, Chen Li, Shuyang Gu, Ting Zhang, Jianmin Bao, Zheng Zhang, Houqiang Li, Han Hu, et al. Instructdiffusion: A generalist modeling inter- face for vision tasks. In CVPR, pages 12709–12720, 2024. 1

    2024

  9. [17]

    Vec- tor quantized diffusion model for text-to-image synthesis

    Shuyang Gu, Dong Chen, Jianmin Bao, Fang Wen, Bo Zhang, Dongdong Chen, Lu Yuan, and Baining Guo. Vec- tor quantized diffusion model for text-to-image synthesis. In CVPR, pages 10696–10706, 2022. 1

    2022

  10. [18]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR, pages 770–778, 2016. 5

    2016

  11. [19]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022. 6

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

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

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models. NeurIPS, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 1, 4

    2020

  14. [22]

    To- wards quantitative evaluation metrics for image editing ap- proaches

    Dana Cohen Hochberg, Oron Anschel, Alon Shoshan, Igor Kviatkovsky, Manoj Aggarwal, and Gerard Medioni. To- wards quantitative evaluation metrics for image editing ap- proaches. In CVPR, pages 7892–7900, 2024. 2

    2024

  15. [23]

    Composer: Creative and controllable im- age synthesis with composable conditions

    Lianghua Huang, Di Chen, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Jingren Zhou. Composer: Creative and controllable im- age synthesis with composable conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09778, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Region-aware diffusion for zero-shot text-driven image editing

    Nisha Huang, Fan Tang, Weiming Dong, Tong-Yee Lee, and Changsheng Xu. Region-aware diffusion for zero-shot text-driven image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11797,

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Pfb-diff: Progres- sive feature blending diffusion for text-driven image editing

    Wenjing Huang, Shikui Tu, and Lei Xu. Pfb-diff: Progres- sive feature blending diffusion for text-driven image editing. Neural Networks, page 106777, 2024. 3

    2024

  18. [26]

    Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. In CVPR, pages 6007–6017, 2023. 2

    2023

  19. [27]

    Diffusion-lm improves control- lable text generation

    Xiang Li, John Thickstun, Ishaan Gulrajani, Percy S Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Diffusion-lm improves control- lable text generation. NeurIPS, 35:4328–4343, 2022. 3

    2022

  20. [28]

    Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation

    Yuheng Li, Haotian Liu, Qingyang Wu, Fangzhou Mu, Jian- wei Yang, Jianfeng Gao, Chunyuan Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation. In CVPR, pages 22511–22521, 2023. 3

    2023

  21. [29]

    Stylet2i: Toward compositional and high-fidelity text- to-image synthesis

    Zhiheng Li, Martin Renqiang Min, Kai Li, and Chenliang Xu. Stylet2i: Toward compositional and high-fidelity text- to-image synthesis. In CVPR, pages 18197–18207, 2022. 3

    2022

  22. [30]

    Design guidelines for prompt engineering text-to-image generative models

    Vivian Liu and Lydia B Chilton. Design guidelines for prompt engineering text-to-image generative models. In Proc. 2022 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. , pages 1–23, 2022. 2

    2022

  23. [31]

    Evalcrafter: Benchmarking and evalu- ating large video generation models

    Yaofang Liu, Xiaodong Cun, Xuebo Liu, Xintao Wang, Yong Zhang, Haoxin Chen, Yang Liu, Tieyong Zeng, Raymond Chan, and Ying Shan. Evalcrafter: Benchmarking and evalu- ating large video generation models. InCVPR, pages 22139– 22149, 2024. 2

    2024

  24. [32]

    Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Andreas Lugmayr, Martin Danelljan, Andres Romero, Fisher Yu, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In CVPR, pages 11461–11471, 2022. 3

    2022

  25. [33]

    Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jia- jun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    T2i-adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models

    Chong Mou, Xintao Wang, Liangbin Xie, Yanze Wu, Jian Zhang, Zhongang Qi, and Ying Shan. T2i-adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models. In AAAI, pages 4296–4304, 2024. 3

    2024

  27. [35]

    Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741, 2021

    Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741, 2021. 2, 3

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Gpt-4o: Multimodal large language model by ope- nai

    OpenAI. Gpt-4o: Multimodal large language model by ope- nai. Technical report, OpenAI, 2024. Accessed: 2024-09-30. 5, 8

    2024

  29. [37]

    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. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceed- ings, pages 1–11, 2023. 2

    2023

  30. [38]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In ICCV, pages 4195–4205, 2023. 4

    2023

  31. [39]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Diffusion autoen- coders: Toward a meaningful and decodable representation

    Konpat Preechakul, Nattanat Chatthee, Suttisak Wizad- wongsa, and Supasorn Suwajanakorn. Diffusion autoen- coders: Toward a meaningful and decodable representation. In CVPR, pages 10619–10629, 2022. 3

    2022

  33. [41]

    Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision. In ICML, pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021. 3

    2021

  34. [42]

    Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. JMLR, 21(140):1–67, 2020. 3, 5

    2020

  35. [43]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 1 (2):3, 2022. 2, 3

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR, pages 10684– 10695, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  37. [45]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Int. Conf. Med. Image Comput. Comput.-Assisted Inter- vention (MICCAI), pages 234–241. Springer, 2015. 1

    2015

  38. [46]

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

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. In CVPR, pages 22500–22510, 2023. 3

    2023

  39. [47]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    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. NeurIPS, 35:36479–36494, 2022. 1

    2022

  40. [48]

    Hyperextended light- face: A facial attribute analysis framework

    Sefik Ilkin Serengil and Alper Ozpinar. Hyperextended light- face: A facial attribute analysis framework. In ICEET, pages 1–4. IEEE, 2021. 6

    2021

  41. [49]

    Interfacegan: Interpreting the disentangled face representa- tion learned by gans

    Yujun Shen, Ceyuan Yang, Xiaoou Tang, and Bolei Zhou. Interfacegan: Interpreting the disentangled face representa- tion learned by gans. IEEE TPAMI, 44(4):2004–2018, 2020. 6

    2004

  42. [50]

    Exploring compositional visual generation with latent classifier guidance

    Changhao Shi, Haomiao Ni, Kai Li, Shaobo Han, Mingfu Liang, and Martin Renqiang Min. Exploring compositional visual generation with latent classifier guidance. In CVPR, pages 853–862, 2023. 3

    2023

  43. [51]

    Dragdiffusion: Harnessing diffusion models for interactive point-based image editing

    Yujun Shi, Chuhui Xue, Jun Hao Liew, Jiachun Pan, Han- shu Yan, Wenqing Zhang, Vincent YF Tan, and Song Bai. Dragdiffusion: Harnessing diffusion models for interactive point-based image editing. In CVPR, pages 8839–8849,

  44. [52]

    Prompt sliders for fine-grained control, editing and erasing of concepts in dif- fusion models

    Deepak Sridhar and Nuno Vasconcelos. Prompt sliders for fine-grained control, editing and erasing of concepts in dif- fusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16535, 2024. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation

    Narek Tumanyan, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. In CVPR, pages 1921–1930,

    1921

  46. [54]

    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. In ICCV, pages 3836–3847, 2023. 3

    2023

  47. [55]

    Hive: Harnessing human feedback for instructional visual editing

    Shu Zhang, Xinyi Yang, Yihao Feng, Can Qin, Chia-Chih Chen, Ning Yu, Zeyuan Chen, Huan Wang, Silvio Savarese, Stefano Ermon, et al. Hive: Harnessing human feedback for instructional visual editing. In CVPR, pages 9026–9036,

  48. [56]

    Open-sora: Democratizing efficient video production for all, 2024

    Zangwei Zheng, Xiangyu Peng, Tianji Yang, Chenhui Shen, Shenggui Li, Hongxin Liu, Yukun Zhou, Tianyi Li, and Yang You. Open-sora: Democratizing efficient video production for all, 2024. 8

    2024

  49. [57]

    Designing a better asymmetric vqgan for stablediffusion

    Zixin Zhu, Xuelu Feng, Dongdong Chen, Jianmin Bao, Le Wang, Yinpeng Chen, Lu Yuan, and Gang Hua. Designing a better asymmetric vqgan for stablediffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04632, 2023. 3 CompSlider: Compositional Slider for Disentangled Multiple-Attribute Image Generat...

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Additional Details on the T2I Foundation Model The foundation model is a U-Net [45] that predicts the noise ϵ between the noisy imagexI t at timestep t and the denoised image xI t−1 at timestep t − 1. The single-step inference process is defined as xI t−1 = 1√αt xI t − 1 − αt√...

  51. [59]

    Age”, “Smile

    Additional Implementation Details We trained CompSlider using 8 A100 GPUs, and the entire training process took about 16 hours for 20000 iterations. The batch size is set to 2048, and the learning rate is ini- tially warmed up to 1 × 10−4 over 500 steps, then gradually decreas...

  52. [60]

    When multiple subjects share the same attribute, our method lacks precise target selection, as it applies attribute changes uniformly across all subjects

    Limitations. When multiple subjects share the same attribute, our method lacks precise target selection, as it applies attribute changes uniformly across all subjects. This limitation arises because the model does not inherently distinguish which subject should be edited. A po...

  53. [61]

    Ablation Study on the threshold in our structure Loss

    Impact of Threshold Selection in Structure Loss Table 4. Ablation Study on the threshold in our structure Loss. Threshold Continuity%↑ Consistency%↑ Scope%↑ 0.5 64.68 96.44 25.50 0.3 77.48 92.79 57.15 0.1 81.07 90.95 59.02 To demonstrate how the threshold in our structure loss...

  54. [62]

    Our method successfully controls the specified attribute consis- tently across frames, demonstrating its ability to generalize beyond static images

    Extension to Video Generation Figure 9 illustrates how CompSlider extends to text-to- video generation using video foundation models. Our method successfully controls the specified attribute consis- tently across frames, demonstrating its ability to generalize beyond static images

  55. [63]

    Applying our image slider conditional priors to a video generation model maintains effective control and identity

    Discussion on Feature Behavior To further illustrate how our CompSlider generates image conditions and controls the foundational model to produce images with specific attributes, we visualized the cross at- tention between the generated image conditions and the Anger + Time Ag...

  56. [64]

    vector style

    User Studies Details To evaluate our slider method against the current state- of-the-art (SOTA), we conducted an A/B test focusing on smoothness and structural consistency in image transitions. For each test instance, participants viewed a specific slider type (indicated above...

  57. [65]

    Red Hair

    Additional Qualitative Results We show additional qualitative examples for sliders in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13. Figure 11. Interface for our A/B test. - Yaw Rotation + - Red Hair + - Blond Hair + Figure 12. Slider generation results for “Red Hair”, “Blond Hair”, and “Yaw Rotation”....

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.