MDE-Edit: Masked Dual-Editing for Multi-Object Image Editing via Diffusion Models

Bo Fu; Haipeng Liu; Hongyang Zhu; Yang Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

MDE-Edit: Masked Dual-Editing for Multi-Object Image Editing via Diffusion Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MDE-Edit claims that a training-free dual-loss optimization of the diffusion latent—aligning cross-attention to masks and amplifying attribute attention inside them—enables localized multi-object edits that improve both semantic alignment…

desk verdict Plausible dual-loss editing method with internally consistent ablations, but the missing LoMOE baseline and lack of error bars undermine the SOTA claim until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05101 v2 pith:6CA2KLHQ submitted 2025-05-08 cs.CV

Hongyang Zhu , Haipeng Liu , Bo Fu , Yang Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords multi-objectimageeditingdiffusionmodelscross-attentioncontroltext-guidedmaskedlatentoptimizationobjectalignmentlosscolorconsistencytraining-free

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

This paper claims that a training-free, inference-stage optimization can make text-guided diffusion models edit several objects at once without the usual failures of attention misalignment and color bleeding. The proposed MDE-Edit adds two losses to the noise-latent denoising loop: Object Alignment Loss (OAL), which pulls layer-averaged cross-attention maps toward per-object segmentation masks, and Color Consistency Loss (CCL), which forces the attention of a new attribute token (for example "red") to concentrate inside the target mask. On non-overlapping and overlapping multi-object benchmarks, the paper reports higher CLIP Score and better background preservation than NTI+P2P, CDS, GnR, and OIR, with the largest margins on overlapping scenes. If the claim holds, precise multi-object editing needs no retraining or model weight changes, only gradient updates to the latent during sampling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the cross-attention map itself, extracted from the U-Net of Stable Diffusion and averaged over layers and heads. OAL treats that averaged map as a soft segmentation and matches it to a hard SAM mask with a dual BCE loss; CCL uses the same maps to compute a ratio between the edit token's attention and the total attention of shared tokens inside the mask. The combined gradient updates the latent noise only inside edit masks (Eq. 8), while attention injection from the reconstruction branch (Eq. 3) keeps shared-token structure intact.

What would settle it

Measure the overlap (IoU) between the averaged attention maps and the SAM masks on a set of small, overlapping objects; if optimizing OAL fails to improve editing quality precisely in the low-overlap cases, the localization claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the two failure modes of multi-object editing—wrong location and attribute leakage—can be decoupled and fixed separately at inference time. OAL treats the averaged cross-attention map for each edited token as an implicit segmentation and aligns it to the SAM mask with two binary cross-entropy terms, one on the raw map and one on its scale-normalized version. CCL maximizes, inside the mask, the attention of the new attribute token relative to the sum of all shared-token attentions, which suppresses color leaking into adjacent objects. The latent is then updated by gradient descent on the combined loss, and Eq. (8) re-blends the edited latent with the reconstruction latent outside the masks. In Table 1 the method reaches CLIP Score 0.282 (non-overlap) and 0.290 (overlap) versus best baselines 0.278 and 0.267, while improving BG-SSIM to 0.925/0.936 and BG-LPIPS to 0.106/0.086.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that what the diffusion model pays attention to, averaged across its layers and heads, reliably marks where each object is in the image, even for small or overlapping objects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because OAL and CCL act only on intermediate attention maps and the latent, the same recipe can be attached to any Stable-Diffusion-based editor that already provides an inversion trajectory.
The mask-blended gradient update in Eq. (8) keeps unedited regions untouched by construction, which explains the reported BG-LPIPS and BG-SSIM gains.
The dual-loss separation means object replacement and attribute recoloring can be scheduled with different loss weights, giving users independent control over geometry and appearance.
If the Table 1 numbers transfer to other backbones, the approach offers a generic inference-time plug-in for multi-object editing without retraining.

Reading between the lines

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

As an extension beyond the paper, OAL could be fed attention-derived masks instead of SAM masks, which would remove the external segmentation dependency; the paper does not test this.
As an extension beyond the paper, CCL's ratio formulation suggests a natural test on attribute swaps other than color (texture, pose, material), where attention leakage may behave differently.
As an extension beyond the paper, the method's dependence on mask quality means accuracy on small or heavily occluded objects is an open question; the paper does not quantify attention-mask overlap.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: MDE-Edit is a credible, training-free multi-object editing method. The new bit is the pairing of an object-alignment loss (OAL) that fits averaged multi-layer cross-attention maps to SAM masks with a color-consistency loss (CCL) that amplifies edit-token attention inside masks and suppresses leakage. That combination is not in OIR, CDS, GnR, or NTI+P2P, and the ablations in Table 2 show each loss moves the metrics in the advertised direction. The qualitative figures are consistent with the story. So the core mechanism holds up on its own terms.

The soft spots are real and mostly evidentiary. The stress-test concern is correct: Section 5.1 says evaluation uses both OIR-bench and LoMOE-bench, but Table 1 compares only against NTI+P2P, CDS, GnR, and OIR. LoMOE is the method that introduced LoMOE-bench and is purpose-built for localized multi-object editing, so leaving it out leaves the strongest baseline for this exact task untested. The 'outperforms state-of-the-art' claim cannot stand without that comparison.

Also missing: error bars or significance tests. The gaps are sometimes small (BG-LPIPS 0.111 vs 0.106 in non-overlap), and without variance we don't know if OIR is actually behind. The paper says code is in the supplementary material, but the submission has no supplementary material, so that claim is unfulfilled. A few implementation details are under-specified: how SAM masks are resized to cross-attention resolution, and the exact optimization schedule (iterations per timestep, step size, number of timesteps optimized beyond the stated 20). These are addressable in revision.

On the circularity question: OAL and CCL directly push the attention maps toward the targets the method claims to control, so the ablations partly measure fitting to the objective. That said, the reported metrics (CLIP Score, BG-LPIPS, BG-SSIM) are external to the losses, so the circularity is not fatal; it just means the ablation numbers need to be read with that in mind.

Who this is for: people working on attention-based editing and inference-stage control of diffusion models. They will find the loss formulation and the ablations useful. I would not yet cite the SOTA claim, but I would engage with the method.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, but with a specific request to add the LoMOE baseline on LoMOE-bench, provide error bars, and release the code. If those are supplied and the comparison holds, this is a solid incremental contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MDE-Edit, a training-free inference-stage optimization method for multi-object image editing with Stable Diffusion. The method uses two losses: Object Alignment Loss (OAL), which aligns averaged multi-layer cross-attention maps with SAM segmentation masks to enforce spatial accuracy, and Color Consistency Loss (CCL), which boosts edit-token attention within masks while suppressing leakage to other regions. The latent is updated by gradient descent inside the editing masks during the initial denoising steps. Experiments on OIR-bench and LoMOE-bench compare against NTI+P2P, CDS, GnR, and OIR, reporting higher CLIP Score, lower BG-LPIPS, and higher BG-SSIM; ablations show that both losses contribute to the final performance.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, MDE-Edit is a plausible and lightweight alternative for localized multi-object editing, decoupling structural localization from appearance control in a training-free scheme. The dual-loss design is well motivated, and the ablations show consistent trends in the intended direction. The paper addresses a real limitation of existing mask-based and attention-based methods. However, the evidence for the central 'outperforms SOTA' claim is currently incomplete: the most relevant baseline (LoMOE) is missing from the comparison on its own benchmark, and the reported numbers are presented without error bars or significance testing. These issues are essential to verify before the performance claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section 5.2, Table 1] The paper evaluates on LoMOE-bench (Section 5.1) but omits LoMOE itself (Chakrabarty et al., ACM MM 2024) from the comparison set in Table 1. LoMOE is the method that introduced this benchmark and is specifically designed for localized multi-object editing, the exact task MDE-Edit claims to advance. Omitting it leaves the most relevant baseline untested; the claim of outperforming state-of-the-art methods is therefore not substantiated on this benchmark. Include LoMOE in Table 1 or explicitly justify its exclusion.
[Section 5.1, Table 1] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any metric. Some reported margins are small (e.g., non-overlap BG-LPIPS 0.106 for MDE-Edit versus 0.111 for OIR), so it is unclear whether the improvements are statistically meaningful. The text states that the quantitative evaluation 'conclusively demonstrates' superiority, which is not supported without repeated runs and appropriate statistical testing.
[Section 4.2.1, Eq. (4)-(5)] OAL depends on the assumption that averaged cross-attention maps (averaged over layers and heads) align with SAM masks at the same spatial resolution. The paper does not specify how masks are resized to the cross-attention resolution, nor does it analyze how reliably this implicit segmentation localizes small or heavily overlapping objects. Since a wrong target in Eq. (5) would propagate errors into the latent update, this assumption is load-bearing. Please provide implementation details for mask preprocessing and an analysis of localization accuracy, at least for the overlapping-object cases shown in Figure 5.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.3, Eq. (8)] The notation in Eq. (8) is ambiguous: z*_t appears on both sides of the equation. Clarify that the gradient update is computed on the editing-branch latent and then merged with the reconstruction-branch latent outside the mask.
[Section 5.1] The text says 'Our code can be accessed in the supplementary material,' but no code repository, appendix, or supplementary document is included in the manuscript. Please add a concrete link or describe how the code can be obtained.
[Section 2, Related Work] LoMOE [3] is cited in the references and used as a benchmark, but it is not discussed in the related-work section. A brief discussion of its relationship to MDE-Edit would help position the contribution.
[Figures 4 and 5] The source and target prompt text in the qualitative comparison figures is very small and difficult to read. Increasing the font size or placing the prompts in a separate readable table would improve clarity.
[Section 5.2, Paragraph 2] The qualitative descriptions of baseline failures (e.g., 'OIR often results in blurred details', 'CDS tends to affect neighboring regions') are not tied to specific examples in the figures. Please refer to specific rows or regions in Figures 4 and 5 to make these claims verifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the losses are by construction attention/mask objectives, but the headline empirical claims rest on external metrics (CLIP, BG-LPIPS, BG-SSIM) and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

MDE-Edit's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that its core contributions, OAL and CCL, are implemented as explicit loss terms (Eqs. 5 and 6) that directly optimize cross-attention alignment to SAM masks and attention concentration on edit tokens. This is a method design, not a prediction: the paper never uses attention-to-mask agreement as an evaluation metric, and the reported quantitative results (Tables 1 and 2) use CLIP Score for text-image alignment and BG-LPIPS/BG-SSIM for background fidelity, all external to the optimized objectives. The background-preservation claim is partly enforced by construction through the mask-merge update of Eq. 8, but that is a stated mechanism rather than a fitted parameter disguised as a finding, and the comparison against baselines on the same external metrics remains meaningful. The authors cite their own prior work ([15], [16], [32]) only as related inpainting/knowledge-distillation context; none of those citations is load-bearing for the multi-object editing claim. The missing LoMOE baseline and absence of significance tests are evidence-gap/correctness concerns, not circularity. No step reduces to its own input by definition or by self-citation, so the appropriate score is 0.

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

The method introduces no physical or conceptual entities beyond the loss functions; it relies on existing models (Stable Diffusion, CLIP, SAM) and standard inversion techniques. The central claim rests on stated empirical tuning of loss weights, on the accuracy of SAM masks, and on the assumption that cross-attention maps are meaningful localization signals.

free parameters (5)

lambda1 (OAL weight) = 1
Set by empirical tuning across multiple trials (Section 5.1), no sensitivity analysis reported; the balance between structure and appearance losses affects final results.
lambda2 (CCL weight) = 1.25
Set by the same empirical tuning; no sensitivity analysis reported.
Gradient step size delta = not reported
Used in the latent update Eq. 8; no value or schedule is given, so the optimization is underspecified.
Optimization window = initial 20 timesteps of 50
Chosen empirically; no comparison of other window sizes is provided.
Optimization iterations per timestep = not reported
The number of gradient updates applied at each of the 20 steps is not stated, making runtime and behavior ambiguous.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Cross-attention maps averaged over layers and heads faithfully localize objects and can be aligned to SAM masks (Eq. 4-5, Discussion 1).
If averaged attention does not correspond to object boundaries, OAL would enforce a wrong target and degrade editing. The paper asserts this empirically without a quantitative study.
domain assumption Null-text inversion and DDIM inversion reproduce the source image well enough that shared-token attention injection preserves structure (Section 3, Section 4.1).
NTI is known to fail for some images; reconstruction errors would propagate through the injected attention maps.
ad hoc to paper The ratio form in CCL and the mask S correctly localize attribute binding (Eq. 6, Discussion 2).
The loss is hand-designed; no ablation or theory shows this ratio is necessary or sufficient for color locality.
domain assumption SAM provides accurate masks for all edited objects in the test sets (Section 5.1).
OAL and CCL are computed inside these masks; mask errors directly translate into edit errors.
ad hoc to paper The combined loss L_total has useful gradients for the latent z_t^* in the masked region (Eq. 7-8).
The paper does not analyze convergence, gradient magnitude, or interaction between the two losses; success is only demonstrated empirically.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MDE-Edit: Masked Dual-Editing for Multi-Object Image Editing via Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6CA2KLHQ

@misc{pith2026250505101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MDE-Edit: Masked Dual-Editing for Multi-Object Image Editing via Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6CA2KLHQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05101}
}

read the original abstract

Multi-object editing aims to modify multiple objects or regions in complex scenes while preserving structural coherence. This task faces significant challenges in scenarios involving overlapping or interacting objects: (1) Inaccurate localization of target objects due to attention misalignment, leading to incomplete or misplaced edits; (2) Attribute-object mismatch, where color or texture changes fail to align with intended regions due to cross-attention leakage, creating semantic conflicts (\textit{e.g.}, color bleeding into non-target areas). Existing methods struggle with these challenges: approaches relying on global cross-attention mechanisms suffer from attention dilution and spatial interference between objects, while mask-based methods fail to bind attributes to geometrically accurate regions due to feature entanglement in multi-object scenarios. To address these limitations, we propose a training-free, inference-stage optimization approach that enables precise localized image manipulation in complex multi-object scenes, named MDE-Edit. MDE-Edit optimizes the noise latent feature in diffusion models via two key losses: Object Alignment Loss (OAL) aligns multi-layer cross-attention with segmentation masks for precise object positioning, and Color Consistency Loss (CCL) amplifies target attribute attention within masks while suppressing leakage to adjacent regions. This dual-loss design ensures localized and coherent multi-object edits. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MDE-Edit outperforms state-of-the-art methods in editing accuracy and visual quality, offering a robust solution for complex multi-object image manipulation tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05101 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of our proposed MDE-Edit framework. (a) The proposed MDE-Edit framework consists of two main [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Multi-object editing failure cases. Revealing chal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Qualitative comparison with the state-of-the-arts in simple multi-object scenes without overlap. While other ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Qualitative comparison with state-of-the-art methods in multi-object overlapping scenarios. In complex scenarios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Multi-object editing results of MDE-Edit. Showcas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Ablations for MDE-Edit. (a) Ablation results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

ReVision : A Post-Hoc, Vision-Based Technique for Replacing Unacceptable Concepts in Image Generation Pipeline
cs.CR 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

ReVision uses a vision-language model's bounding box to gate attention-based image editing, suppressing unsafe concepts while better preserving benign background in multi-concept scenes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried. 2022. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 18208–18218

work page 2022
[2]

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
[3]

Goirik Chakrabarty, Aditya Chandrasekar, Ramya Hebbalaguppe, and Prathosh AP. 2024. Lomoe: Localized multi-object editing via multi-diffusion. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 3342–3351

work page 2024
[4]

Hila Chefer, Yuval Alaluf, Yael Vinker, Lior Wolf, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2023. Attend-and-excite: Attention-based semantic guidance for text-to-image diffusion models. ACM transactions on Graphics (TOG) 42, 4 (2023), 1–10

work page 2023
[5]

Guillaume Couairon, Jakob Verbeek, Holger Schwenk, and Matthieu Cord. 2022. Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11427 (2022)

arXiv 2022
[6]

Vidit Goel, Elia Peruzzo, Yifan Jiang, Dejia Xu, Nicu Sebe, Trevor Darrell, Zhangyang Wang, and Humphrey Shi. 2023. Pair-diffusion: Object-level im- age editing with structure-and-appearance paired diffusion models. CoRR (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2020. Generative adversarial networks. Commun. ACM 63, 11 (2020), 139–144

2020
[8]

Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2023. Delta denoising score. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 2328– 2337

work page 2023

Show all 39 references

[9]

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)

2022 arXiv
[10]

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)

2021 arXiv
[11]

Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. 2023. Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 6007–6017

2023
[12]

Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al
[13]

Pengzhi Li, Qinxuan Huang, Yikang Ding, and Zhiheng Li. 2023. Layerdiffusion: Layered controlled image editing with diffusion models. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Technical Communications. 1–4

2023
[14]

Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proce...

2014
[15]

Haipeng Liu, Yang Wang, Biao Qian, Meng Wang, and Yong Rui. 2024. Struc- ture matters: Tackling the semantic discrepancy in diffusion models for image inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 8038–8047

2024
[16]

Haipeng Liu, Yang Wang, Meng Wang, and Yong Rui. 2022. Delving globally into texture and structure for image inpainting. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 1270–1278

2022
[17]

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)

2021 arXiv
[18]

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
[19]

Hyelin Nam, Gihyun Kwon, Geon Yeong Park, and Jong Chul Ye. 2024. Contrastive denoising score for text-guided latent diffusion image editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 9192–9201

2024
[20]

Or Patashnik, Zongze Wu, Eli Shechtman, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Dani Lischinski
[21]

Biao Qian, Yang Wang, Richang Hong, and Meng Wang. 2023. Adaptive data-free quantization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 7960–7968

2023
[22]

Biao Qian, Yang Wang, Richang Hong, and Meng Wang. 2023. Rethinking data- free quantization as a zero-sum game. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 37. 9489–9497

2023
[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 learni...

2021
[24]

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

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 infor...

2022
[27]

Shelly Sheynin, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Yuval Kirstain, Amit Zohar, Oron Ashual, Devi Parikh, and Yaniv Taigman. 2024. Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and generation tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ...

2024
[28]

Yujun Shi, Chuhui Xue, Jun Hao Liew, Jiachun Pan, Hanshu Yan, Wenqing Zhang, Vincent YF Tan, and Song Bai. 2024. Dragdiffusion: Harnessing diffusion mod- els for interactive point-based image editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Rec...

2024
[29]

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

2020 arXiv
[30]

Vadim Titov, Madina Khalmatova, Alexandra Ivanova, Dmitry Vetrov, and Aibek Alanov. 2024. Guide-and-Rescale: Self-Guidance Mechanism for Effective Tuning- Free Real Image Editing. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 235–251

2024
[31]

Narek Tumanyan, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. 2023. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 1921–1930

2023
[32]

Yang Wang, Biao Qian, Haipeng Liu, Yong Rui, and Meng Wang. 2024. Unpacking the gap box against data-free knowledge distillation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

2024
[33]

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
[34]

Zhen Yang, Ganggui Ding, Wen Wang, Hao Chen, Bohan Zhuang, and Chunhua Shen. 2023. Object-aware inversion and reassembly for image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12149 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[35]

Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang
[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
[2021]

In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

Styleclip: Text-driven manipulation of stylegan imagery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 2085–2094
[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

2022 arXiv
[2023]

In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. 4015–4026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried. 2022. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 18208–18218

work page 2022

[2] [2]

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

[3] [3]

Goirik Chakrabarty, Aditya Chandrasekar, Ramya Hebbalaguppe, and Prathosh AP. 2024. Lomoe: Localized multi-object editing via multi-diffusion. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 3342–3351

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Hila Chefer, Yuval Alaluf, Yael Vinker, Lior Wolf, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2023. Attend-and-excite: Attention-based semantic guidance for text-to-image diffusion models. ACM transactions on Graphics (TOG) 42, 4 (2023), 1–10

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Guillaume Couairon, Jakob Verbeek, Holger Schwenk, and Matthieu Cord. 2022. Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11427 (2022)

arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

Vidit Goel, Elia Peruzzo, Yifan Jiang, Dejia Xu, Nicu Sebe, Trevor Darrell, Zhangyang Wang, and Humphrey Shi. 2023. Pair-diffusion: Object-level im- age editing with structure-and-appearance paired diffusion models. CoRR (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2020. Generative adversarial networks. Commun. ACM 63, 11 (2020), 139–144

2020

[8] [8]

Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2023. Delta denoising score. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 2328– 2337

work page 2023