Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Latent Drifting in Diffusion Models for Counterfactual Medical Image Synthesis

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a small scalar drift to the noise mean of a pretrained diffusion model lets it generate medical counterfactual images, and closes the distribution gap between general and medical domains.

desk verdict A simple noise-mean shift that gives consistent FID/KID gains across diffusion fine-tuning methods on medical images, but with a loose theory and unsupported 'closes the distribution gap' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20651 v2 pith:6NKGNB6S submitted 2024-12-30 cs.CV cs.AI

Yousef Yeganeh , Azade Farshad , Ioannis Charisiadis , Marta Hasny , Martin Hartenberger , Björn Ommer , Nassir Navab , Ehsan Adeli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords latentdriftdiffusionmodelscounterfactualimagegenerationmedicalsynthesisfine-tuningdistributionshiftbrainMRIchestX-ray
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces Latent Drift (LD), a single signed scalar added to the mean of the noise distribution at every diffusion reverse step, and to the forward target during fine-tuning, as a way to condition a pretrained diffusion model on a medical image domain without training from scratch. It frames this as a counterfactual conditioning problem: a shifted latent code exists that makes the pretrained model generate the target medical domain, and the shift is chosen by minimizing an L1 distance to the available target samples. On three longitudinal medical benchmarks, two brain MRI datasets and one chest X-ray dataset, adding LD improves FID and KID across four fine-tuning schemes and enables disease addition and removal, aging, and sex change with text-and-image conditioning. If this holds, LD is a cheap, method-agnostic way to make scarce-data medical counterfactual synthesis practical with models that were never trained on medical images.

What carries the argument

The central object is the latent drift $\delta$, a signed scalar injected into the diffusion process by replacing the reverse mean $\mu_{\theta}(x_t,t)$ with $\mu_{\theta}(x_t,t)+\delta$ and adding $\delta$ to the forward target $z_T$ during fine-tuning. Its role is to act as an extra, data-dependent conditioning signal: the paper's hypothesis is that the stochastic term $\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma)$ does not change under text or image conditioning, so the latent prior must be shifted explicitly to reflect the target domain. The selection mechanism is a grid search over $\delta$ minimizing the L1 distance between synthetically generated samples and the target dataset, framed as the counterfactual objective of Eq. (5). This is what carries the argument: all reported gains are attributed to a constant scalar shift in latent space.

What would settle it

Re-run the four fine-tuning protocols on a held-out medical modality not in the paper and grid-search $\delta$ by the L1 criterion; if no $\delta$ beats the no-LD baseline on FID and KID, or if a randomly chosen $\delta$ performs just as well, then the L1-selected drift is not what closes the distribution gap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Latent Drifting is the claim that the final latent variable $z_T$ of a diffusion model should be treated as part of the conditioning, and that shifting its mean by a scalar $\delta$ lets a pretrained model generate samples from a target distribution without access to the original training set. Concretely, the reverse transition becomes $p_{\theta}(x_{t-1}|x_t)=\mathcal{N}(x_{t-1};\mu_{\theta}(x_t,t)+\delta,\Sigma_{\theta}(x_t,t))$, and during fine-tuning the same $\delta$ is added to the forward target $z_T$. The paper connects this to the counterfactual min-max objective of Eq. (5), where $\lambda=0$ gives standard fine-tuning and $\lambda>0$ leads to searching $\delta$ via grid search to minimize the L1 distance between generated and target samples. The reported outcome is consistent FID and KID improvements, plus improved downstream classifier AUC on real test sets, across all four fine-tuning methods.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one constant scalar $\delta$ added to the noise mean at every step can move a pretrained model's output distribution into the medical target domain, with $\delta$ chosen by L1-distance grid search on a small sample set; if no single shift suffices, the method has no principled basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because LD is a scalar added to the sampling process, it can be layered onto any fine-tuning method that keeps the latent diffusion architecture, so future adapters should inherit the same distribution-matching benefit.
  • The reported AUC improvements from classifiers trained on LD-generated brain MRIs imply that synthetic counterfactual images can substitute for part of the real training data in scarce-data medical settings.
  • Text- and image-conditioned counterfactual edits, such as removing or adding disease, aging, and changing sex, can be produced from a pretrained general model rather than a domain-specific model trained from scratch.
  • Latent drift also operates at pure inference time: with identical sampled noise, varying $\delta$ changes the identity and style of the generated image, making $\delta$ an additional conditioning axis with no fine-tuning required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the constant-$\delta$ assumption could be tested by learning a per-sample or per-step drift; if that outperforms the grid-searched constant, the L1 selection is a crude proxy for a richer latent shift rather than the whole mechanism.
  • Beyond the paper, the same drift mechanism should transfer to other out-of-distribution domains beyond medical imaging, such as satellite imagery or cell microscopy, since the paper's framing depends only on a distribution gap and a small target sample set.
  • Beyond the paper, the interaction between $\delta$ and classifier-free guidance or prompt diversity is unmeasured; a testable prediction is that the optimal $\delta$ changes with guidance scale, which would connect LD to established conditioning dynamics.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Latent Drift (LD), a scalar offset δ added to the mean of the reverse diffusion transition (Eq. 4), with the goal of adapting pre-trained Stable Diffusion models to medical image domains. The authors claim that LD operationalizes a counterfactual objective (Eq. 5), can be combined with any fine-tuning method, and improves counterfactual medical image generation on brain MRI (ADNI/OASIS) and chest X-ray (CheXpert) data. The method selects δ by grid search to minimize an L1 distance between generated samples and the target dataset, and is evaluated with FID/KID/AUC, image-to-image aging and disease editing, and several ablations.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, the contribution would be practically attractive: a simple scalar intervention at inference time that improves FID/KID for several fine-tuning schemes, with potential applications in counterfactual medical image synthesis from small datasets. The paper's strengths are its breadth of experiments, use of three public benchmarks, and integration with multiple fine-tuning backbones. However, the formal grounding is not delivered: the connection between the counterfactual objective and δ is asserted rather than derived, the selection of δ is a grid search on the same target distribution later used for evaluation, and the headline improvement is not consistent across metrics (e.g., Custom Diffusion AUC on brain MR decreases with LD). These issues must be resolved before the empirical claims can be considered reliable.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (5)] The connection between the counterfactual objective and the scalar δ is asserted, not derived. Eq. (5) requires a classifier f and two fidelity terms ℓ_o and ℓ_in, but no classifier appears in the generation or δ-selection procedure. The statement 'ℓ_in ∝ 1/ℓ_o' is unsupported and appears to contradict the usual trade-off: increasing desired-outcome fidelity generally increases, not decreases, the input change needed for a counterfactual. The text then states that for λ>0 the minimum value of δ is found via grid search, but the grid search minimizes an L1 distance to the target dataset, not Eq. (5). The authors should either derive a concrete relation between δ and Eq. (5) or reframe LD as a heuristic distribution-shift correction and remove the counterfactual optimization formalism.
  2. [Sections 3.3–3.4 and 4.1] δ is selected by minimizing an L1 distance between generated samples and the target dataset, and the same target/test data are then used for FID/KID/AUC evaluation. The paper does not report a validation split, cross-validation, or the number of target samples used for δ selection. Without this separation, the FID improvements in Table 1 may reflect fitting δ to the test distribution rather than a genuine domain-adaptation mechanism. Please specify the exact selection protocol and re-evaluate on held-out data or with nested validation.
  3. [Table 1] The claim that LD improves all fine-tuning methods is contradicted by the brain MR AUC for Custom Diffusion, which drops from 0.609 to 0.544 with LD even though FID improves. Since the headline claim is consistent distribution-gap closure, the paper must reconcile this discrepancy, report per-metric consistency, or qualify the claim. In addition, all FID/KID/AUC values are point estimates without error bars or significance tests; given the small generated-sample counts (200 for brain MR, 400 for chest X-ray), the reported differences may not be reliable.
  4. [Section 3.3] The L1 norm between generated samples and target samples is used as a distance between distributions without definition or justification. Pairwise L1 distances between image tensors are not a standard divergence between distributions and can be minimized by degenerate strategies such as memorizing or averaging target samples. The authors should justify this choice, replace it with a proper distribution distance (e.g., MMD with a suitable kernel), or demonstrate on a validation set that the L1 criterion tracks FID/KID.
  5. [Section 3.4 and Experiments] The roles of λ and the 'min-max' formulation are not operationalized. The paper sets λ=1 in the counterfactual experiments but does not describe how the two terms of Eq. (5) are evaluated, and τ is ablated in the supplement without being defined in the main text. The reader cannot determine what objective is actually optimized during fine-tuning versus during inference, nor when δ is added (forward process, reverse process, or both) and over what grid. Please provide the complete algorithm, including the exact δ grid and the precise training and inference protocols.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (1)] The definition of ᾱ_t is garbled; it should be the product of α over time steps, not 'αt := 1 − βt and ¯αt = Qt s=0 αst + 1' as written.
  2. [Section 2] Custom Diffusion is cited as reference [11], but reference [11] is Textual Inversion; the correct citation for Custom Diffusion is [22].
  3. [Table 1] The row 'Stable Diffusion [40]' with ✗ is ambiguous; it should clarify whether this is no fine-tuning, basic fine-tuning without LD, or something else.
  4. [Section 4.2.2] 'Structure Similarity Inced' should be 'Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM)'.
  5. [Figure 2 and Section 3.4] The paper should report the exact δ values chosen for each experiment and provide a quantitative sensitivity curve of FID or AUC as a function of δ; the qualitative examples in Figure 2 do not convey the effect size.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Latent Drifting's headline gains are partly a test-set hyperparameter fit: delta is chosen by grid search to minimize L1 distance to the same target samples later used for FID/KID/AUC evaluation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4 (Latent Drifting in Diffusion Models) and Section 4.1 (Evaluation Metrics), Tables 1, 3, 4]
    "if (λ >0), the minimum value of δ is found via grid search to minimize the distance function. ... Here, we employed the L1norm as the distance function and tune hyperparameter δ. ... For the evaluation of the image realism, we calculate the Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) [13] and Kernel Inception Distance (KID) [2] between the synthetically generated samples and our test set. ... All models for brain MR generation are evaluated on 200 samples, and the models on chest X-rays are evaluated on 400 test samples."

    The paper selects δ by minimizing an L1 distance between generated samples and the target dataset, then reports FID/KID/AUC computed against that same target ('our test set') without describing any validation split. Any δ that improves the L1 match to those test samples is, by construction, closer to the evaluation distribution in at least that L1 sense; the reported distribution-gap closure is therefore a tuned fit to the evaluation set rather than a blind prediction. Because the same samples are used for δ selection and FID evaluation, the headline improvements in Table 1 are statistically forced and do not independently validate the domain-adaptation mechanism.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular in the sense that Eq. (5) fully determines δ: the paper asserts, rather than derives, that a constant shift δ operationalizes the counterfactual objective. The concrete circularity is in the evaluation protocol: δ is fitted by grid search to minimize L1 distance to the target distribution, and the same target distribution is then used as the test set for FID, KID, and AUC. The paper never states a held-out validation set for δ selection, so the reported improvements are at least partly a consequence of test-set hyperparameter selection rather than an independent prediction. This affects the paper's strongest claim that LD closes the distribution gap and improves all fine-tuning schemes. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the self-references to prior work by the authors are contextual and do not by themselves force the reported result. The score is 6 rather than higher because FID is not identical to the L1 selection criterion, so the reported gains are not fully equivalent to the fitted quantity by definition; they are nonetheless statistically forced on the shared evaluation set.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central adaptation mechanism is a scalar noise shift, which constitutes a free parameter fitted to the target data. The counterfactual framing is not actually optimized and serves as a post-hoc justification for the grid search.

free parameters (3)
  • delta (latent drift) = 0.1 (reported in Section 4.2.1; supplement ablates the range)
    The core hyperparameter, selected by grid search to minimize L1 distance between synthetic samples and the target dataset; the main results use a drift of 0.1.
  • lambda (counterfactual weighting) = 1 (in counterfactual experiments)
    Mentioned in Eq. (5) and set to 1, but its effect on the method is not described and no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • tau = unknown
    Referenced in Section 4.2.3 as ablated in the supplement, but undefined in the main text; appears to be another free parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The pre-trained diffusion model's forward and reverse Markov processes correctly model the data distribution.
    Standard background used in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
  • domain assumption There exists a latent code z' similar to z that, under the pre-trained model, generates samples from the target medical domain.
    Stated in Section 3.4 as the premise for adapting via latent drifting; unproven.
  • ad hoc to paper Adding a scalar delta to the noise mean at each reverse step shifts the output distribution toward the target distribution.
    The central mechanism of LD; asserted and empirically tested but not derived from the training objective.
  • ad hoc to paper The L1 norm between generated and target samples is a valid distance for selecting delta.
    Used in Section 3.3 to define the distribution discrepancy; no justification for L1 over other distances.
  • ad hoc to paper The counterfactual objective in Eq. (5) can be operationalized by the scalar delta.
    The paper connects Eq. (5) to delta only by assertion in Section 3.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Latent Drifting in Diffusion Models for Counterfactual Medical Image Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NKGNB6S

@misc{pith2026241220651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Latent Drifting in Diffusion Models for Counterfactual Medical Image Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NKGNB6S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20651}
}
read the original abstract

Scaling by training on large datasets has been shown to enhance the quality and fidelity of image generation and manipulation with diffusion models; however, such large datasets are not always accessible in medical imaging due to cost and privacy issues, which contradicts one of the main applications of such models to produce synthetic samples where real data is scarce. Also, fine-tuning pre-trained general models has been a challenge due to the distribution shift between the medical domain and the pre-trained models. Here, we propose Latent Drift (LD) for diffusion models that can be adopted for any fine-tuning method to mitigate the issues faced by the distribution shift or employed in inference time as a condition. Latent Drifting enables diffusion models to be conditioned for medical images fitted for the complex task of counterfactual image generation, which is crucial to investigate how parameters such as gender, age, and adding or removing diseases in a patient would alter the medical images. We evaluate our method on three public longitudinal benchmark datasets of brain MRI and chest X-rays for counterfactual image generation. Our results demonstrate significant performance gains in various scenarios when combined with different fine-tuning schemes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20651 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Medical Image Generation and Manipulation using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Samples generated with identical sampled noise and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Image and Latent Space Distribution w. and w/o. LD in Fine-tuning + Sampling. Rows 1-2: sampled images with different latent drift parameters (δ) during the inference. Row 3: channel-wise distribution change in images during the reverse sampling process. Row 4: distribution of the latent space z0 during in reverse sampling. neural networks. With this reverse Markov chain in hand, we can generate a data sample x0 by … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MRI Slice Generation for Cognitively Normal (CN) and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) after fine-tuning Stable Diffusion with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Image Generation w. and w/o. LD during fine-tuning. Examples generated from left to right using Textual Inversion [11], DreamBooth [41], Custom Diffusion [22], and Basic FT [40] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Brain aging example using the prompt ”Age this CN 70 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Generated counterfactual MRI slices from Alzheimer’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Generated counterfactual samples on CheXpert using Pix2Pix Zero + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    AutoPaint: A Self-Inpainting Method for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection

    Mehdi Astaraki, Francesca De Benetti, Yousef Yeganeh, Iu- liana Toma-Dasu, ¨Orjan Smedby, Chunliang Wang, Nassir Navab, and Thomas Wendler. Autopaint: A self-inpainting method for unsupervised anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12358, 2023. 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Sutherland, Michael Arbel, and Arthur Gretton

    Mikołaj Bi ´nkowski, Danica J. Sutherland, Michael Arbel, and Arthur Gretton. Demystifying mmd gans. In Interna- tional Conference for Learning Representations, pages 1–36,

    work page

  3. [3]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 3, 5, 7

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Adapting pretrained vision-language foundational models to medical imaging domains

    Pierre Chambon, Christian Bluethgen, Curtis P Langlotz, and Akshay Chaudhari. Adapting pretrained vision-language foundational models to medical imaging domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04133, 2022. 2, 3

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Towards robust classification model by coun- terfactual and invariant data generation

    Chun-Hao Chang, George Alexandru Adam, and Anna Goldenberg. Towards robust classification model by coun- terfactual and invariant data generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15212–15221, 2021. 3

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Custom-edit: Text-guided image edit- ing with customized diffusion models

    Jooyoung Choi, Yunjey Choi, Yunji Kim, Junho Kim, and Sungroh Yoon. Custom-edit: Text-guided image edit- ing with customized diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15779, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Medical diffusion on a budget: tex- tual inversion for medical image generation

    Bram de Wilde, Anindo Saha, Richard PG ten Broek, and Henkjan Huisman. Medical diffusion on a budget: tex- tual inversion for medical image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13430, 2023. 2, 3, 5

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Semantic image manipulation using scene graphs

    Helisa Dhamo, Azade Farshad, Iro Laina, Nassir Navab, Gregory D Hager, Federico Tombari, and Christian Rup- precht. Semantic image manipulation using scene graphs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5213–5222, 2020. 2, 3

    work page 2020

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Dispositionet: Disentangled pose and identity in semantic image manipulation

    Azade Farshad, Yousef Yeganeh, Helisa Dhamo, Federico Tombari, and Nassir Navab. Dispositionet: Disentangled pose and identity in semantic image manipulation. In 33rd British Machine Vision Conference 2022, BMVC 2022, Lon- don, UK, November 21-24, 2022, 2022. 2

    2022

  2. [10]

    Scenegenie: Scene graph guided diffusion models for image synthesis

    Azade Farshad, Yousef Yeganeh, Yu Chi, Chengzhi Shen, Bj¨orn Ommer, and Nassir Navab. Scenegenie: Scene graph guided diffusion models for image synthesis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 88–98, 2023. 2

    2023

  3. [11]

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

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patashnik, Amit Haim Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion. In The Eleventh Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. 2...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 2

    2014

  5. [13]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017. 5

    2017

  6. [14]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 3, 4

    2020

  7. [15]

    Chexpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty labels and expert comparison

    Jeremy Irvin, Pranav Rajpurkar, Michael Ko, Yifan Yu, Sil- viana Ciurea-Ilcus, Chris Chute, Henrik Marklund, Behzad Haghgoo, Robyn Ball, Katie Shpanskaya, et al. Chexpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty labels and expert comparison. In Proceedings of the AAA...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Image-to-image translation with conditional adver- sarial networks

    Phillip Isola, Jun-Yan Zhu, Tinghui Zhou, and Alexei A Efros. Image-to-image translation with conditional adver- sarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1125–1134,

  9. [17]

    Prism: Progressive restoration for scene graph-based image manipulation

    Pavel Jahoda, Azade Farshad, Yousef Yeganeh, Ehsan Adeli, and Nassir Navab. Prism: Progressive restoration for scene graph-based image manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02247, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Conditional gan with an attention-based generator and a 3d discriminator for 3d medical image generation

    Euijin Jung, Miguel Luna, and Sang Hyun Park. Conditional gan with an attention-based generator and a 3d discriminator for 3d medical image generation. Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2021, 12906: 318–328, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  11. [19]

    Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8110–8119, 2020. 2

    2020

  12. [20]

    Alias- free generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Samuli Laine, Erik H ¨ark¨onen, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Alias- free generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.12423, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models for 3d med- ical image generation

    Firas Khader, Gustav M ¨uller-Franzes, Soroosh Tayebi Arasteh, Tianyu Han, Christoph Haarburger, Maximilian Schulze-Hagen, Philipp Schad, Sandy Engelhardt, Bettina Baeßler, Sebastian Foersch, Johannes Stegmaier, Christiane Kuhl, Sven Nebelung, Jakob Nikolas Kather, and Daniel ...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion

    Nupur Kumari, Bingliang Zhang, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1931–1941, 2023. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8

    1931

  15. [23]

    Oasis-3: longitudinal neuroimaging, clin- ical, and cognitive dataset for normal aging and alzheimer disease

    Pamela J LaMontagne, Tammie LS Benzinger, John C Mor- ris, Sarah Keefe, Russ Hornbeck, Chengjie Xiong, Eliza- beth Grant, Jason Hassenstab, Krista Moulder, Andrei G Vlassenko, et al. Oasis-3: longitudinal neuroimaging, clin- ical, and cognitive dataset for normal aging and alz...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Storygan: A sequential conditional gan for story vi- sualization

    Yitong Li, Zhe Gan, Yelong Shen, Jingjing Liu, Yu Cheng, Yuexin Wu, Lawrence Carin, David Carlson, and Jianfeng Gao. Storygan: A sequential conditional gan for story vi- sualization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6...

    2019

  17. [25]

    Editgan: High-precision semantic image editing

    Huan Ling, Karsten Kreis, Daiqing Li, Seung Wook Kim, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. Editgan: High-precision semantic image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.03186 ,

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Physics-informed latent diffusion for multimodal brain mri synthesis

    Sven L ¨upke, Yousef Yeganeh, Ehsan Adeli, Nassir Navab, and Azade Farshad. Physics-informed latent diffusion for multimodal brain mri synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13532, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Conditional generative adversarial nets

    Mehdi Mirza and Simon Osindero. Conditional generative adversarial nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784, 2014. 2

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Diffusion proba- bilistic models beat gans on medical images

    Gustav M ¨uller-Franzes, Jan Moritz Niehues, Firas Khader, Soroosh Tayebi Arasteh, Christoph Haarburger, Chris- tiane Kuhl, Tianci Wang, Tianyu Han, Sven Nebelung, Jakob Nikolas Kather, and Daniel Truhn. Diffusion proba- bilistic models beat gans on medical images. Scientific ...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Alexander Quinn Nichol and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8162–8171. PMLR,

  22. [30]

    Glide: Towards photorealis- tic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models

    Alexander Quinn Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob Mcgrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. Glide: Towards photorealis- tic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, p...

    2022

  23. [31]

    SESAME: Semantic Edit- ing of Scenes by Adding, Manipulating or Erasing Objects

    Evangelos Ntavelis, Andr ´es Romero, Iason Kastanis, Luc Van Gool, and Radu Timofte. SESAME: Semantic Edit- ing of Scenes by Adding, Manipulating or Erasing Objects. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2020 , pages 394–411, Cham,

    2020

  24. [32]

    Semantic image synthesis with spatially-adaptive nor- malization

    Taesung Park, Ming-Yu Liu, Ting-Chun Wang, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Semantic image synthesis with spatially-adaptive nor- malization. In CVPR, 2019. 2

    2019

  25. [33]

    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. 3, 5, 7

    2023

  26. [34]

    Generating realistic 3d brain mris using a conditional diffu- sion probabilistic model

    Wei Peng, Ehsan Adeli, Qingyu Zhao, and Kilian M Pohl. Generating realistic 3d brain mris using a conditional diffu- sion probabilistic model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08034,

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Brain imaging generation with latent diffusion models

    Walter HL Pinaya, Petru-Daniel Tudosiu, Jessica Dafflon, Pedro F Da Costa, Virginia Fernandez, Parashkev Nachev, Sebastien Ourselin, and M Jorge Cardoso. Brain imaging generation with latent diffusion models. In MICCAI Work- shop on Deep Generative Models, pages 117–126. Springer,

  28. [36]

    Equitable modelling of brain imaging by coun- terfactual augmentation with morphologically constrained 3d deep generative models

    Guilherme Pombo, Robert Gray, M Jorge Cardoso, Sebastien Ourselin, Geraint Rees, John Ashburner, and Parashkev Nachev. Equitable modelling of brain imaging by coun- terfactual augmentation with morphologically constrained 3d deep generative models. Medical Image Analysis , 84:...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

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

    2021

  30. [38]

    Degenerative adversarial neuroimage nets: generating images that mimic disease progression

    Daniele Ravi, Daniel C Alexander, Neil P Oxtoby, and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Degenerative adversarial neuroimage nets: generating images that mimic disease progression. In International Conference on Medi- cal Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interven...

    2019

  31. [39]

    Degenerative adver- sarial neuroimage nets for brain scan simulations: Applica- tion in ageing and dementia

    Daniele Ravi, Stefano B Blumberg, Silvia Ingala, Frederik Barkhof, Daniel C Alexander, Neil P Oxtoby, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, et al. Degenerative adver- sarial neuroimage nets for brain scan simulations: Applica- tion in ageing and dementia. Medical Image ...

    2022

  32. [40]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    2022

  33. [41]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22500...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Counterfactual generative networks

    Axel Sauer and Andreas Geiger. Counterfactual generative networks. In International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2020. 3

    2020

  35. [43]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Worts- man, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in Neural In- f...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 4

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Image synthesis from reconfig- urable layout and style

    Wei Sun and Tianfu Wu. Image synthesis from reconfig- urable layout and style. In ICCV, 2019. 2

    2019

  38. [46]

    Embracing imperfect datasets: A review of deep learning solutions for medical image segmentation

    Nima Tajbakhsh, Laura Jeyaseelan, Qian Li, Jeffrey N Chi- ang, Zhihao Wu, and Xiaowei Ding. Embracing imperfect datasets: A review of deep learning solutions for medical image segmentation. Medical Image Analysis , 63:101693,

  39. [47]

    Coun- terfactual explanations without opening the black box: Au- tomated decisions and the gdpr

    Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. Coun- terfactual explanations without opening the black box: Au- tomated decisions and the gdpr. Harv. JL & Tech., 31:841,

  40. [48]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis and semantic manipulation with conditional gans

    Ting-Chun Wang, Ming-Yu Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, Andrew Tao, Jan Kautz, and Bryan Catanzaro. High-resolution image syn- thesis and semantic manipulation with conditional gans. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8798–8807, 2018. 2

    2018

  41. [49]

    Weiner, Dallas P

    Michael W. Weiner, Dallas P. Veitch, Paul S. Aisen, Lau- rel A. Beckett, Nigel J. Cairns, Robert C. Green, Danielle Harvey, Clifford R. Jack, William Jagust, Enchi Liu, John C. Morris, Ronald C. Petersen, Andrew J. Saykin, Mark E. Schmidt, Leslie Shaw, Judith A. Siuciak, Holly...

    2012

  42. [50]

    Tsaftaris

    Tian Xia, Agisilaos Chartsias, Chengjia Wang, and Sotirios A. Tsaftaris. Learning to synthesise the ageing brain without longitudinal data. Medical Image Analysis , 73(1),

  43. [51]

    Anatomy-aware masking for inpainting in medical imaging

    Yousef Yeganeh, Azade Farshad, and Nassir Navab. Anatomy-aware masking for inpainting in medical imaging. In International Workshop on Shape in Medical Imaging , pages 35–46. Springer, 2023. 2

    2023

  44. [52]

    Visage: Video synthesis using action graphs for surgery

    Yousef Yeganeh, Rachmadio Lazuardi, Amir Shamseddin, Emine Dari, Yash Thirani, Nassir Navab, and Azade Farshad. Visage: Video synthesis using action graphs for surgery. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 146–156. Springer,

  45. [53]

    Sadm: Sequence-aware diffusion model for longitudinal medical image generation

    Jee Seok Yoon, Chenghao Zhang, Heung-Il Suk, Jia Guo, and Xiaoxiao Li. Sadm: Sequence-aware diffusion model for longitudinal medical image generation. In International Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging , pages 388–400. Springer, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  46. [54]

    Large-scale robust deep auc maximization: A new surrogate loss and empirical studies on medical image classification

    Zhuoning Yuan, Yan Yan, Milan Sonka, and Tianbao Yang. Large-scale robust deep auc maximization: A new surrogate loss and empirical studies on medical image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3040–3049, 2021. 5

    2021

  47. [55]

    Image generation from layout

    Bo Zhao, Lili Meng, Weidong Yin, and Leonid Sigal. Image generation from layout. In CVPR, 2019. 2

    2019

  48. [56]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle- consistent adversarial networks

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle- consistent adversarial networks. In ICCV, 2017. 2

    2017

  49. [2020]

    Springer International Publishing. 3

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.