DreamPoster: A Unified Framework for Image-Conditioned Generative Poster Design

Dexiang Hong; Haokun Chen; Hui Zhang; Jie Shao; Xinglong Wu; Xiwei Hu; Zhongqi Qi

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

DreamPoster: A Unified Framework for Image-Conditioned Generative Poster Design

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DreamPoster claims a unified image-conditioned framework for poster generation, built on Seedream3.0, that turns a product image and a text prompt into a finished poster and reports an 88.55% usability rate.

desk verdict A plausible ByteDance systems paper with a genuinely useful data pipeline, but its headline 88.55% usability claim rests on internal evaluation artifacts that need to be released before the numbers can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04218 v1 pith:AABNLC7S submitted 2025-07-06 cs.CV

Xiwei Hu , Haokun Chen , Zhongqi Qi , Hui Zhang , Dexiang Hong , Jie Shao , Xinglong Wu This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords postergenerationimage-conditioneddiffusiontransformertextrenderingtypographichierarchyprogressivetrainingdataannotationpipelinemultimodal

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

DreamPoster claims that one unified model, built on the Seedream3.0 text-to-image backbone, can handle nearly the full range of poster design tasks: adding text to an image, replacing or deleting text, restyling, resizing, and composing product images with titles and slogans. The paper's evidence is a curated dataset pipeline that reverses existing posters into source materials and annotations, a transformer architecture that concatenates image and text tokens, and a three-stage progressive training schedule. If the reported evaluations hold, the model produces usable posters from minimal inputs at a much higher rate than general-purpose image generators such as GPT-4o and SeedEdit3.0. The practical stakes are that poster creation, normally a professional design skill, becomes a single prompt-and-image operation in consumer tools.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a transformer-based diffusion model in which the input image embedding, the text-prompt tokens, and the noisy target-image latent are concatenated into one token sequence and processed by joint self-attention. This lets layout, typography, and visual content be decided in the same pass. The architecture is initialized from a pre-trained text-to-image diffusion transformer (Seedream3.0), then adapted through three progressive training stages: single-task text addition, multi-task mixed editing, and a final high-quality aesthetic alignment stage on expert-designed posters. Around this sits a data pipeline that deconstructs existing posters by inpainting out text, segmenting subjects, and re-captioning each poster with a specialized Poster Captioner that records glyph-level typographic details and layout structure.

What would settle it

Run a blind, head-to-head study on an independently built set of poster briefs with new designers and report the usability rate with confidence intervals; if DreamPoster's rate falls to within the baseline range, or if its prompt-following and design-sense scores no longer lead on every axis, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that DreamPoster sets a new state of the art for image-conditioned poster generation: on the authors' internally curated benchmark and 40-person user study, it achieves an 88.55% usability rate, compared with 47.56% for GPT-4o and 25.96% for SeedEdit3.0, and it scores higher than every baseline on all five evaluated dimensions: prompt following, subject preservation, design sense, usability rate, and satisfaction rate. The authors attribute this result to jointly modeling the condition image, the text prompt, and the noisy output latent in a single diffusion-transformer sequence, trained hierarchically from simple text addition to multi-task editing to aesthetic fine-tuning. In the authors' framing, the model does not edit images so much as design posters: it balances content fidelity with typographic hierarchy and layout, which is why the usability margin over general-purpose editors is large.

Load-bearing premise

The reported lead over GPT-4o and SeedEdit3.0 rests on the internal benchmark and the 40-person usability study being representative of real poster requests and rated without bias; if those are unrepresentative, the margins shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Poster design collapses from a multi-step professional workflow into a single image-plus-prompt generation call, while keeping the source product or character recognizable.
One model, rather than task-specific expert systems, can cover text addition, text replacement, text deletion, resizing, and full restyling, which is what the multi-task training stage is built to demonstrate.
Because the model handles flexible resolutions and aspect ratios, it can output posters sized for different placements without the rigid input-output matching that limits earlier editors.
Deployed in consumer apps such as Jimeng, the model would let non-designers produce professional-looking promotional graphics from photos and short text.
If the usability number is taken at face value, roughly nine out of ten generated posters need no manual correction, which is the threshold that makes automated generation practical.

Reading between the lines

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

The same deconstruction-and-recaption pipeline could be turned to adjacent text-heavy design domains—book covers, social-media cards, packaging—provided a source corpus with layered text and graphics exists.
The paper leaves the evaluation benchmark and the 40-participant study internal; a public or independently administered benchmark would let outsiders test whether the 88.55% margin generalizes beyond the authors' prompts and raters.
The progressive curriculum's ordering (write text first, then mix tasks, then polish aesthetics) is a testable recipe that could transfer to other instruction-following generation tasks where typography matters, such as UI mockups or infographics.
Because the Poster Captioner is itself a trained model, the quality of the glyph and layout annotations is a hidden variable; improving that captioner should improve the final poster fidelity, which suggests a measurable extension: ablate the captioner's annotation quality against downstream usability.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick read. The genuinely new pieces in DreamPoster are the data pipeline and the training curriculum: OCR filtering merged with aesthetic scoring, reverse-engineering source pairs by inpainting out text, and a trained Poster Captioner that emits separate glyph-focused and layout-focused captions. Those are described concretely enough that someone could rebuild the pipeline in spirit, and they are the part of the paper I'd take seriously. The three-stage progressive training (text addition, multi-task mixing, aesthetic fine-tuning) is a sensible curriculum and is clearly explained. The DiT with concatenated image/text/noise tokens is not new, and the authors largely acknowledge that by citing prior work like Ominicontrol.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note lands: Section 5.2's headline numbers — 88.55% vs 47.56% vs 25.96% usability — are measured on an internally curated benchmark with 40 participants, and the paper gives no benchmark size, no category distribution, no prompt templates, no baseline configurations, no evaluator recruitment details, no inter-rater agreement, and no error bars or significance tests. The base model (Seedream3.0) and the strongest compared baseline (SeedEdit3.0) are from the same lab, so the comparison is self-referential even if unintentionally so. None of this proves the margin is wrong; it means the evidence chain is not yet strong enough for the strength of the claim.

One place the stress-test note overreaches: the seedream-generated input images are flagged in Figure 1 for the qualitative examples, not for the benchmark. The provenance of benchmark inputs is unspecified, so the concern about in-distribution advantage is legitimate but unconfirmed. The reader's "invented entity: Poster Captioner" also does not land: Section 3.3 describes it as a trained captioning model; it is a component, not a hallucination.

What the paper does not do: no ablation separating the contribution of the data pipeline from the curriculum from the architecture, no external benchmark, no public code/data. The deployment sentence in the abstract is an intent, not a measured claim.

Who should read it: people working on automated graphic design, text rendering, or productized T2I systems. I would give it a serious referee: the system is substantial and, if the usability margins survive an independent evaluation, they matter. But the immediate ask to the authors should be to release the benchmark, the evaluation protocol, and the human-study details, and add error bars and at least one external baseline. I would not cite the quantitative claim in its current form.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents DreamPoster, a diffusion-transformer framework for image-conditioned poster generation built on Seedream3.0. It contributes a data curation pipeline that pairs source materials with final posters, a specialized Poster Captioner for annotating typographic and layout information, a unified architecture that concatenates text and image tokens, and a three-stage progressive training curriculum. The main empirical claim is that DreamPoster achieves an 88.55% usability rate, outperforming GPT-4o (47.56%) and SeedEdit3.0 (25.96%) on an internally curated benchmark and a 40-participant user study.

Significance. If the claimed margins are reliable, DreamPoster would be a substantial advance in practical image-conditioned poster generation, with clear industry relevance. The dataset pipeline and the idea of training a dedicated poster captioner are interesting contributions that could benefit the wider text-rendering and graphic-design community. However, the current paper does not make the evaluation reproducible: the benchmark and human-study protocol are not described in sufficient detail, no significance tests or error bars are reported, and the strongest baseline (SeedEdit3.0) comes from the same lab as the proposed system. As a result, the scientific significance is currently limited; the paper reads as a system report whose quantitative claims require an independently checkable evaluation.

major comments (5)

[Section 5.2] The quantitative evaluation lacks the specifications needed to interpret the headline numbers. The paper reports a usability rate of 88.55% for DreamPoster, 47.56% for GPT-4o, and 25.96% for SeedEdit3.0, but does not state the number of benchmark items, the category distribution, the prompt templates, the baseline API configurations or sampling parameters, the evaluator instructions, or any agreement measure between the 40 participants. Without these details and without confidence intervals or significance tests, the reported margins cannot be separated from the measurement choices. Please provide the full evaluation protocol, release the benchmark items and human-study forms, and report per-item score distributions with appropriate statistical tests.
[Figure 5 / Section 5.2] The claim that DreamPoster 'consistently outperforms all baseline models across all five evaluation dimensions' is supported only by a normalized radar chart. No error bars, standard deviations, or pairwise significance tests are given, so a reader cannot tell whether the expert-rated differences (e.g., 3.88 vs. the next-best value) are meaningful given the 40-participant sample. Please report the per-dimension mean and variance and run a paired test across benchmark items (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or bootstrap) for each dimension and each baseline.
[Section 5.1 / Figure 1] The evaluation inputs may be confounded with the training distribution. Figure 1 states that all input images were generated by Seedream3.0, the same model family on which DreamPoster is built, and the paper does not state the provenance of benchmark input images. If the benchmark inputs are largely Seedream-generated, DreamPoster could enjoy an in-distribution advantage unrelated to poster-design skill. Please report the provenance of all benchmark inputs and include a separate evaluation on real-world user-provided images.
[Section 3.3] The Poster Captioner is a central component of the data pipeline, but its accuracy is not evaluated. The paper asserts that it 'is able to identify all text strings present and additionally describes their visual attributes', yet no transcription accuracy, layout-description consistency, or qualitative error analysis is reported. Since the captions are used as supervision for the generative model, an evaluation of the captioner is necessary to establish that the training signal is faithful. Please add a captioner evaluation and state its architecture, training data, and scale.
[Section 4.2] Section 4.2 describes a three-stage progressive training strategy as a key contribution, but no ablation isolates the contribution of each stage. The experiments in Section 5 compare only the final model to external baselines; they do not show that the staged curriculum improves over single-stage training on the same data. Please include ablations (e.g., Stage 1 only, Stages 1+2, full pipeline) on a common evaluation set.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2.2] In the sentence 'lacking support for diversified editing operations or multi-style adaptation', the phrase 'i.e. poster generation' should be 'i.e., poster generation' for consistency and readability.
[Figure 2] The caption reads 'The overview of our dataset pipeline'; it should be 'An overview of our dataset pipeline'.
[Figure 5] The phrase 'weight normalized radar chart' is not defined; please specify what the weights are and how the normalization is computed.
[Abstract / Section 5.2] The abstract refers to 'testing benchmarks' (plural) while Section 5.2 describes a single 'internally curated benchmark'; please align the terminology.
[Section 4.1 / Figure 3] The term 'MM-Attention' in Figure 3 is not defined in the text; please clarify whether it refers to the multi-modal self-attention over the concatenated token sequence.
[Section 3] The paper does not report the total size of the DreamPoster dataset or the resolution of the training images; these basic statistics are needed to assess the scale of the data pipeline.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: usability rates are measured by a human study, not derived from any fit or cited constant; the self-referential evidence chain (same-lab base model, same-lab flagship baseline, internally curated benchmark, internal study) is a reproducibility and validity risk, weighing at a marginal 2.

full rationale

DreamPoster contains essentially no mathematical derivation, so the circularity check reduces to whether its quantitative claims are constructed rather than measured. The 88.55% Usability Rate (Abstract; Sec. 5.2) is the output of a defined human protocol — 'the percentage of results with fewer than 3 non-satisfaction points' — applied by 40 participants, not the value of any fitted parameter or imported constant; no equation in the paper maps training data into that number. The dataset loop is grounded in ground truth from the posters themselves: OCR extracts the text, aesthetic scoring filters quality, and the Poster Captioner annotates the same poster corpus, so DreamPoster's supervision traces to observed data rather than to its own generations. The same-lab references (Seedream3.0 [9] as base model; SeedEdit3.0 [27] as flagship baseline; also [22], [32], [33]) are factual and structural — the 25.96% SeedEdit3.0 score is the authors' own measurement, not a number cited from [27], and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported. What prevents a clean 0 is the self-referential character of the whole evidence chain: base model, strongest compared baseline ('our earlier SeedEdit3.0 model'), 'internally curated benchmark' (Sec. 5.2), and the in-house 40-participant study are all controlled by one team, with no error bars, inter-rater agreement, evaluator recruitment details, or external validation, and Fig. 1 discloses that all illustrative input images are generated by Seedream3.0 itself. Those are genuinely weighty correctness and reproducibility risks — an independent, blinded, pre-registered comparison is needed to verify the reported margins — but under the review rules they are evidence-integrity concerns, not circularity by construction, so the score is 2 rather than 0 or higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper is an empirical systems report. There are no mathematical derivations or fitted constants in the usual sense, but the central claim rests on several unverified domain assumptions about data quality, caption accuracy, base model transfer, and evaluation validity.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Seedream3.0 provides a strong, stable text-to-image backbone that can be fine-tuned to a new domain without losing generation quality.
All architecture and training build on Seedream3.0 (Section 4.1), yet no ablation of the base model is reported.
domain assumption Inpainting and segmentation-based deconstruction produce faithful source-target pairs for training.
Section 3.2 assumes removed text and isolated objects represent the true source materials of each poster.
ad hoc to paper The Poster Captioner accurately captures text strings, typography, and layout.
Section 3.3 uses these captions as supervision, but no accuracy or validation of the captioner is provided.
domain assumption The internally curated benchmark and 40-participant human study are representative and unbiased.
Section 5.2 places all quantitative claims on this evaluation without sampling or recruitment details.

invented entities (1)

Poster Captioner
purpose: Annotates poster images with glyph-level and layout-level captions to supervise training.
The captioner is a new internal component; no release, no examples, and no accuracy metrics are given, so it cannot be independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DreamPoster: A Unified Framework for Image-Conditioned Generative Poster Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AABNLC7S

@misc{pith2026250704218,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DreamPoster: A Unified Framework for Image-Conditioned Generative Poster Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AABNLC7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04218}
}

read the original abstract

We present DreamPoster, a Text-to-Image generation framework that intelligently synthesizes high-quality posters from user-provided images and text prompts while maintaining content fidelity and supporting flexible resolution and layout outputs. Specifically, DreamPoster is built upon our T2I model, Seedream3.0 to uniformly process different poster generating types. For dataset construction, we propose a systematic data annotation pipeline that precisely annotates textual content and typographic hierarchy information within poster images, while employing comprehensive methodologies to construct paired datasets comprising source materials (e.g., raw graphics/text) and their corresponding final poster outputs. Additionally, we implement a progressive training strategy that enables the model to hierarchically acquire multi-task generation capabilities while maintaining high-quality generation. Evaluations on our testing benchmarks demonstrate DreamPoster's superiority over existing methods, achieving a high usability rate of 88.55\%, compared to GPT-4o (47.56\%) and SeedEdit3.0 (25.96\%). DreamPoster will be online in Jimeng and other Bytedance Apps.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

PosterHarness: Turning Scientific Poster Generation into an Auditable Instruction-Following Benchmark
cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

A placeholder-first harness separates visual poster design from scientific figure grounding, turning poster generation into measurable instruction-following with a 12-paper pilot and failure taxonomy.
EmoStyle: Affective Conditioning of Style-Specialist Experts for Emotional Image Generation
cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

EmoStyle injects LLM-inferred valence-arousal and emotion labels into Z-Image via AdaLN-style residual modulation over style-bucket LoRA experts, plus VLM candidate ranking, and ranked first on AffectiveArt Track 1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Flux.1 [dev].https://huggingface.co/black-forest-labs/FLUX.1-dev, 2024

Black Forest Labs. Flux.1 [dev].https://huggingface.co/black-forest-labs/FLUX.1-dev, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

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

work page 2023
[3]

Diffusion self- distillation for zero-shot customized image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18616, 2024

Shengqu Cai, Eric Chan, Yunzhi Zhang, Leonidas Guibas, Jiajun Wu, and Gordon Wetzstein. Diffusion self- distillation for zero-shot customized image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18616, 2024

arXiv 2024
[4]

Posta: A go-to framework for customized artistic poster generation

Haoyu Chen, Xiaojie Xu, Wenbo Li, Jingjing Ren, Tian Ye, Songhua Liu, Ying-Cong Chen, Lei Zhu, and Xinchao Wang. Posta: A go-to framework for customized artistic poster generation. InCVPR, 2025

work page 2025
[5]

Textdiffuser-2: Unleashing the power of language models for text rendering

Jingye Chen, Yupan Huang, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Qifeng Chen, and Furu Wei. Textdiffuser-2: Unleashing the power of language models for text rendering. InECCV, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level image customization

Xi Chen, Lianghua Huang, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Hengshuang Zhao. Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level image customization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6593–6602, 2024

2024
[7]

Dit4edit: Diffusion transformer for image editing

Kunyu Feng, Yue Ma, Bingyuan Wang, Chenyang Qi, Haozhe Chen, Qifeng Chen, and Zeyu Wang. Dit4edit: Diffusion transformer for image editing. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2025

work page 2025
[8]

Postermaker: Towards high-quality product poster generation with accurate text rendering

Yifan Gao, Zihang Lin, Chuanbin Liu, Min Zhou, Tiezheng Ge, Bo Zheng, and Hongtao Xie. Postermaker: Towards high-quality product poster generation with accurate text rendering. InCVPR, 2025

work page 2025

Show all 38 references

[9]

Seedream 3.0 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11346, 2025

Yu Gao, Lixue Gong, Qiushan Guo, Xiaoxia Hou, Zhichao Lai, Fanshi Li, Liang Li, Xiaochen Lian, Chao Liao, Liyang Liu, et al. Seedream 3.0 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11346, 2025

2025 arXiv
[10]

Gemini 2.5 flash: A hybrid reasoning multimodal model

Google DeepMind and Google AI. Gemini 2.5 flash: A hybrid reasoning multimodal model. Model card and blog post, 2025. URLhttps://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/generative-ai/docs/models/gemini/2-5-flash

2025
[11]

Smartedit: Exploring complex instruction-based image editing with multimodal large language models

Yuzhou Huang, Liangbin Xie, Xintao Wang, Ziyang Yuan, Xiaodong Cun, Yixiao Ge, Jiantao Zhou, Chao Dong, Rui Huang, Ruimao Zhang, et al. Smartedit: Exploring complex instruction-based image editing with multimodal large language models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference ...

2024
[12]

Cole: A hierarchical generation framework for multi-layered and editable graphic design.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16974, 2023

Peidong Jia, Chenxuan Li, Yuhui Yuan, Zeyu Liu, Yichao Shen, Bohan Chen, Xingru Chen, Yinglin Zheng, Dong Chen, Ji Li, et al. Cole: A hierarchical generation framework for multi-layered and editable graphic design.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16974, 2023

2023 arXiv
[13]

Black Forest Labs, Stephen Batifol, Andreas Blattmann, Frederic Boesel, Saksham Consul, Cyril Diagne, Tim Dockhorn, Jack English, Zion English, Patrick Esser, et al. Flux. 1 kontext: Flow matching for in-context image generation and editing in latent space.arXiv preprint arXiv...

2025 arXiv
[14]

Schedule your edit: A simple yet effective diffusion noise schedule for image editing

Haonan Lin, Yan Chen, Jiahao Wang, Wenbin An, Mengmeng Wang, Feng Tian, Yong Liu, Guang Dai, Jingdong Wang, and Qianying Wang. Schedule your edit: A simple yet effective diffusion noise schedule for image editing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

2024
[15]

Autoposter: A highly automatic and content-aware design system for advertising poster generation

Jinpeng Lin, Min Zhou, Ye Ma, Yifan Gao, Chenxi Fei, Yangjian Chen, Zhang Yu, and Tiezheng Ge. Autoposter: A highly automatic and content-aware design system for advertising poster generation. InACMMM, 2023

2023
[16]

Step1x-edit: A practical framework for general image editing.arXiv preprintarXiv:2504.17761, 2025

Shiyu Liu, Yucheng Han, Peng Xing, Fukun Yin, Rui Wang, Wei Cheng, Jiaqi Liao, Yingming Wang, Honghao Fu, Chunrui Han, et al. Step1x-edit: A practical framework for general image editing.arXiv preprintarXiv:2504.17761, 2025

2025 arXiv
[17]

Glyph-byt5: A customized text encoder for accurate visual text rendering

Zeyu Liu, Weicong Liang, Zhanhao Liang, Chong Luo, Ji Li, Gao Huang, and Yuhui Yuan. Glyph-byt5: A customized text encoder for accurate visual text rendering. InECCV, 2024

2024
[18]

Dreamo: A unified framework for image customization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16915, 2025

Chong Mou, Yanze Wu, Wenxu Wu, Zinan Guo, Pengze Zhang, Yufeng Cheng, Yiming Luo, Fei Ding, Shiwen Zhang, Xinghui Li, et al. Dreamo: A unified framework for image customization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16915, 2025

2025
[19]

Introducing 4o image generation, 2025

OpenAI. Introducing 4o image generation, 2025. URL https://openai.com/index/ introducing-4o-image-generation/. 9

2025
[20]

Art: Anonymous region transformer for variable multi-layer transparent image generation

Yifan Pu, Yiming Zhao, Zhicong Tang, Ruihong Yin, Haoxing Ye, Yuhui Yuan, Dong Chen, Jianmin Bao, Sirui Zhang, Yanbin Wang, et al. Art: Anonymous region transformer for variable multi-layer transparent image generation. In CVPR, 2025

2025
[21]

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. InCVPR, 2023

2023
[22]

Seededit: Align image re-generation to image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06686, 2024

Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, and Weilin Huang. Seededit: Align image re-generation to image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06686, 2024

2024 arXiv
[23]

Large-scale text-to-image model with inpainting is a zero-shot subject-driven image generator.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15466, 2024

Chaehun Shin, Jooyoung Choi, Heeseung Kim, and Sungroh Yoon. Large-scale text-to-image model with inpainting is a zero-shot subject-driven image generator.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15466, 2024

2024 arXiv
[24]

Ominicontrol: Minimal and universal control for diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15098, 2024

Zhenxiong Tan, Songhua Liu, Xingyi Yang, Qiaochu Xue, and Xinchao Wang. Ominicontrol: Minimal and universal control for diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15098, 2024

2024 arXiv
[25]

Anytext2: Visual text generation and editing with customizable attributes

Yuxiang Tuo, Yifeng Geng, and Liefeng Bo. Anytext2: Visual text generation and editing with customizable attributes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15245, 2024

2024 arXiv
[26]

Instantstyle: Free lunch towards style-preserving in text-to-image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02733, 2024

Haofan Wang, Matteo Spinelli, Qixun Wang, Xu Bai, Zekui Qin, and Anthony Chen. Instantstyle: Free lunch towards style-preserving in text-to-image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02733, 2024

2024 arXiv
[27]

Seededit 3.0: Fast and high-quality generative image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05083, 2025

Peng Wang, Yichun Shi, Xiaochen Lian, Zhonghua Zhai, Xin Xia, Xuefeng Xiao, Weilin Huang, and Jianchao Yang. Seededit 3.0: Fast and high-quality generative image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05083, 2025

2025 arXiv
[28]

Designdiffusion: High-quality text-to-design image generation with diffusion models

Zhendong Wang, Jianmin Bao, Shuyang Gu, Dong Chen, Wengang Zhou, and Houqiang Li. Designdiffusion: High-quality text-to-design image generation with diffusion models. InCVPR, 2025

2025
[29]

Stylediffusion: Controllable disentangled style transfer via diffusion models

Zhizhong Wang, Lei Zhao, and Wei Xing. Stylediffusion: Controllable disentangled style transfer via diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023

2023
[30]

Omnigen: Unified image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11340, 2024

Shitao Xiao, Yueze Wang, Junjie Zhou, Huaying Yuan, Xingrun Xing, Ruiran Yan, Chaofan Li, Shuting Wang, Tiejun Huang, and Zheng Liu. Omnigen: Unified image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11340, 2024

2024 arXiv
[31]

Freetuner: Any subject in any style with training-free diffusion

Youcan Xu, Zhen Wang, Jun Xiao, Wei Liu, and Long Chen. Freetuner: Any subject in any style with training-free diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14201, 2024

2024 arXiv
[32]

Creatilayout: Siamese multimodal diffusion transformer for creative layout-to-image generation.arXiv preprintarXiv:2412.03859, 2024

Hui Zhang, Dexiang Hong, Yitong Wang, Jie Shao, Xinglong Wu, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Creatilayout: Siamese multimodal diffusion transformer for creative layout-to-image generation.arXiv preprintarXiv:2412.03859, 2024

2024 arXiv
[33]

Creatidesign: A unified multi-conditional diffusion transformer for creative graphic design.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19114, 2025

Hui Zhang, Dexiang Hong, Maoke Yang, Yutao Chen, Zhao Zhang, Jie Shao, Xinglong Wu, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Creatidesign: A unified multi-conditional diffusion transformer for creative graphic design.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19114, 2025

2025
[34]

Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction-guided image editing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

Kai Zhang, Lingbo Mo, Wenhu Chen, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction-guided image editing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

2023
[35]

Inversion-based style transfer with diffusion models

Yuxin Zhang, Nisha Huang, Fan Tang, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, Weiming Dong, and Changsheng Xu. Inversion-based style transfer with diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10146–10156, 2023

2023
[36]

Easycontrol: Adding efficient and flexible control for diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07027, 2025

Yuxuan Zhang, Yirui Yuan, Yiren Song, Haofan Wang, and Jiaming Liu. Easycontrol: Adding efficient and flexible control for diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07027, 2025

2025 arXiv
[37]

In-context edit: Enabling instructional image editing with in-context generation in large scale diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20690, 2025

Zechuan Zhang, Ji Xie, Yu Lu, Zongxin Yang, and Yi Yang. In-context edit: Enabling instructional image editing with in-context generation in large scale diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20690, 2025

2025 arXiv
[38]

Ultraedit: Instruction-based fine-grained image editing at scale.Advancesin Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

Haozhe Zhao, Xiaojian Shawn Ma, Liang Chen, Shuzheng Si, Rujie Wu, Kaikai An, Peiyu Yu, Minjia Zhang, Qing Li, and Baobao Chang. Ultraedit: Instruction-based fine-grained image editing at scale.Advancesin Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. 10

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Flux.1 [dev].https://huggingface.co/black-forest-labs/FLUX.1-dev, 2024

Black Forest Labs. Flux.1 [dev].https://huggingface.co/black-forest-labs/FLUX.1-dev, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

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

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Diffusion self- distillation for zero-shot customized image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18616, 2024

Shengqu Cai, Eric Chan, Yunzhi Zhang, Leonidas Guibas, Jiajun Wu, and Gordon Wetzstein. Diffusion self- distillation for zero-shot customized image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18616, 2024

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Posta: A go-to framework for customized artistic poster generation

Haoyu Chen, Xiaojie Xu, Wenbo Li, Jingjing Ren, Tian Ye, Songhua Liu, Ying-Cong Chen, Lei Zhu, and Xinchao Wang. Posta: A go-to framework for customized artistic poster generation. InCVPR, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Textdiffuser-2: Unleashing the power of language models for text rendering

Jingye Chen, Yupan Huang, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Qifeng Chen, and Furu Wei. Textdiffuser-2: Unleashing the power of language models for text rendering. InECCV, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level image customization

Xi Chen, Lianghua Huang, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Hengshuang Zhao. Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level image customization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6593–6602, 2024

2024

[7] [7]

Dit4edit: Diffusion transformer for image editing

Kunyu Feng, Yue Ma, Bingyuan Wang, Chenyang Qi, Haozhe Chen, Qifeng Chen, and Zeyu Wang. Dit4edit: Diffusion transformer for image editing. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2025

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Postermaker: Towards high-quality product poster generation with accurate text rendering

Yifan Gao, Zihang Lin, Chuanbin Liu, Min Zhou, Tiezheng Ge, Bo Zheng, and Hongtao Xie. Postermaker: Towards high-quality product poster generation with accurate text rendering. InCVPR, 2025

work page 2025