Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 34 references

PromptArtisan: Multi-instruction Image Editing in Single Pass with Complete Attention Control

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PromptArtisan claims simultaneous multi-instruction image editing in a single diffusion pass by controlling cross- and self-attention inside a pretrained editor.

desk verdict A plausible new task and a sensible attention-control recipe, but the central mechanism is under-specified and the evidence for 'precise adherence' is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10258 v1 pith:AFK34JVV submitted 2025-02-14 cs.CV cs.HC

Kunal Swami , Raghu Chittersu , Pranav Adlinge , Rajeev Irny , Shashavali Doodekula , Alok Shukla This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.HC
keywords multi-instructionimageeditingmask-promptpairscompleteattentioncontrolzero-shotInstructPix2Pixdiffusionmodelssingle-passMiE-Bench
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 proposes PromptArtisan, a method for making several image edits at once: the user supplies masks, each paired with a textual instruction, and the system returns one edited image in a single diffusion pass. It claims this works precisely even when masks overlap, and that it requires no training and no test-time optimization because it steers the attention maps of a pretrained InstructPix2Pix model. The practical payoff is that multi-step editing, with its repeated encode-decode cycles and accumulating artifacts, is replaced by one pass that keeps each instruction inside its own region. The paper also introduces MiE-Bench, a small benchmark of thirty mask-prompt test cases, to compare methods on this new task.

What carries the argument

The Complete Attention Control Mechanism (CACM) is the load-bearing component. At each reverse-diffusion step it takes the composed mask, the concatenated per-prompt embeddings, and the separately stored prompt embeddings, then rewrites the UNet's cross-attention maps so that each prompt's token scores are nonzero only inside its own mask, with enhancement weights applied to content tokens but not to the start-of-sentence or padding tokens. It also rewrites self-attention maps so pixels from different masks cannot attend to one another, while pixels inside the same mask or in same-colored repeated-object masks can still interact. Outside all masks, latent blending with the unedited diffusion path preserves the original image during early steps. This machinery is what lets a single pass carry many instructions without retraining.

What would settle it

Give PromptArtisan a mask covering only a small patch of sky with the instruction 'make it snow' and inspect the output for snow anywhere outside the mask. If the effect leaks outside the masked region, or if unmasked pixels change despite the early latent blending, the precise-adherence claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multiple mask-prompt pairs can be honored in one reverse-diffusion pass by controlling, at every denoising step, both where each prompt's text tokens attend in the image and which image pixels may attend to which other pixels. PromptArtisan concatenates separately computed prompt embeddings into a single 77n-token sequence, composites the user masks, and applies a Complete Attention Control Mechanism: cross-attention scores are restricted to the corresponding mask and upweighted for content tokens, while self-attention is masked to stop pixels in different masks from influencing one another. Outside all masks, the latent is blended with the unedited diffusion path for the early sampling steps to preserve the original image. The paper argues that this yields precise, simultaneous edits, including intersecting or overlapping masks, with fewer computational passes than running an editor once per instruction.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the base editor's attention maps already know where each described thing should go; if they do not, trimming tokens to a mask and boosting their attention cannot force the edit inside the mask.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the whole edit happens in one reverse-diffusion pass, processing cost is bounded by the diffusion schedule rather than by the number of instructions.
  • Overlapping masks are handled: each prompt is restricted to its own mask and self-attention between different masks is blocked, so conflicting content does not bleed across regions.
  • No training or per-image optimization means the method inherits the base editor's generalization and can edit any image the pretrained model can already edit.
  • The same object can be inserted into multiple masks at once when those masks share a color, because self-attention between same-colored masks is kept enabled.
  • MiE-Bench gives later work a public set of mask-prompt test cases for comparing multi-instruction editors quantitatively and through user preference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same masked attention surgery should transfer to other instruction-tuned diffusion editors, giving zero-shot multi-instruction editing without relying specifically on InstructPix2Pix.
  • Beyond the paper, the ablation's lesson that self-attention blocking matters suggests cross-mask interference is primarily a pixel-pixel phenomenon, so prompt concatenation alone would not produce the same precision.
  • Beyond the paper, one could build an objective version of 'instruction adherence' by computing CLIP similarity between each masked output region and its paired prompt, replacing full-image scores with per-mask scores.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. PromptArtisan proposes a zero-shot, training-free method for multi-instruction image editing in which a user supplies several mask-prompt pairs and the edited image is produced in a single diffusion pass. The method is built on InstructPix2Pix and introduces a Complete Attention Control Mechanism (CACM) that is said to restrict each prompt's cross-attention to its corresponding mask, enhance in-mask attention scores (excluding SOT/PAD tokens), and inhibit self-attention between different mask regions. The authors introduce a new benchmark, MiE-Bench, with 30 test samples, and report quantitative comparisons (CLIP score, PickScore) against GLIDE, Blended Latent Diffusion, IP2P, DiffEdit, Imagic, and Null-text Inversion, plus a 10-participant user study and a qualitative ablation. The central claim is that CACM enables precise, single-pass adherence to multiple mask-prompt pairs, including intersecting and overlapping masks.

Significance. If the mechanism works as described, PromptArtisan addresses a genuinely useful gap: simultaneous multi-instruction editing with spatial masks, without training or test-time optimization, in a single pass. The problem setting itself is a reasonable contribution, and the idea of jointly controlling cross- and self-attention for multiple mask-prompt pairs is worth exploring. However, the manuscript as written does not provide a reproducible specification of CACM, does not test the core localization assumption on which the method depends, and reports only a very small evaluation with no error bars or statistical analysis. The paper also ships no released code or dataset artifacts, so MiE-Bench cannot currently be used by others. The significance is therefore conditional: the potential is real, but the evidence and the mechanism description fall short of what a journal-level claim of 'precise adherence' requires.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III-B and Algorithm 1] CACM is never actually defined. The text states that cross-attention tokens are 'restricted' to their masks and 'enhanced,' and that self-attention between masks is 'inhibited,' but no equations, pseudo-code, or tensor-level operations are given. Algorithm 1 line 8 invokes CACM as a black box, so a reader cannot tell how the masks are applied to pre-softmax attention scores, what enhancement weights are used, how SOT/PAD tokens are excluded, or how self-attention inhibition is implemented. This is load-bearing because the paper's central claim of precise adherence rests entirely on this mechanism; without a precise specification the method cannot be reimplemented, checked, or compared fairly.
  2. [Section III-B1] The cross-attention control assumes that the unmodified InstructPix2Pix cross-attention map for each prompt token already assigns substantial attention mass inside the corresponding user mask. If the token attends primarily outside the mask, zeroing outside-mask attention and upweighting inside-mask attention cannot manufacture correct localization; it only removes incorrect localization. The paper provides no quantitative evidence for this assumption, such as attention-map IoU with the masks, the fraction of attention mass inside each mask, or mask-boundary accuracy. The only ablation (Fig. 4) is qualitative and does not isolate this question. This assumption must be measured before the 'precise adherence' claim can be supported.
  3. [Section IV-C, Table I] The quantitative evaluation is based on only 30 test samples and reports a single point estimate per metric with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. For example, the CLIP score advantage of PromptArtisan (28.78) over IP2P (27.79) and BLD (27.02) may well be within sampling noise. In addition, the adaptation of the baseline methods to the multi-mask setting is not described: it is unclear how IP2P, DiffEdit, or the inversion-based methods receive multiple prompts and multiple masks. Without a specified and fair baseline protocol, the comparison in Table I cannot be interpreted.
  4. [Section IV-B, Table II] The user study has only 10 participants, and no details of the protocol are given: what instructions the participants received, whether images were shown side-by-side or sequentially, whether order was randomized, what rating scale was used, and whether the reported 'preference rate' is an average rank or a fraction of wins. No inter-rater agreement or statistical testing is reported. The claim that PromptArtisan 'consistently ranked top' is therefore not quantitatively supported.
  5. [Section III-B2 and Fig. 4] For overlapping masks, the paper asserts that PromptArtisan can handle intersections and overlaps, but CACM provides no explicit procedure for composing or arbitrating conflicting denoising targets at pixels that belong to more than one mask. The description that self-attention between masks is 'inhibited' does not specify what happens when two masks overlap in the same spatial region, where multiple prompt blocks are simultaneously active on the same pixels. The claim of 'complex edits involving mask intersections or overlaps' is not backed by a defined mechanism for the intersection region, and the qualitative examples alone are insufficient.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 1] The variable csep is introduced but never defined or used in the surrounding text; its role relative to the concatenated condition c is unclear.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The functions CompositeMask(M, Mo) and the mask order Mo are not specified; the paper should explain how masks are composited and what the mask order encodes.
  3. [Section IV-A] The description of MiE-Bench is too terse: the selection criteria for the 30 samples, the exact mask-prompt pairs, and the protocol for constructing the ground-truth comparisons are not given, and the benchmark is not released.
  4. [Section III-B1] The cross-attention enhancement is said to be 'similar to [26],' but the paper does not state whether the enhancement factor from eDiff-I is used unchanged or adapted; a concrete value or formula is needed for reproducibility.
  5. [Algorithm 1] The latent blending step threshold S is a free parameter, but no default value or sensitivity analysis is reported; the same applies to the cross-attention enhancement weight.
  6. [Throughout] The abstract and introduction use promotional language such as 'groundbreaking' and 'unprecedented' that is not appropriate for a technical report; the claims should be stated more neutrally.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the editing outputs are generated directly from user-supplied mask-prompt inputs through a pre-trained model, with no parameters fitted to the reported evaluations and no prediction defined in terms of its own output.

full rationale

PromptArtisan's derivation chain is not circular. The method takes user-provided mask-prompt pairs and conditions a frozen InstructPix2Pix model on them, modulating cross- and self-attention maps as described in Algorithm 1 and Section III-B. No constants are fitted from the benchmark results, no output quantity is reused as an input to the same derivation, and the paper does not invoke any prior work by the same authors to justify a load-bearing premise. The cited attention-enhancement guidance ([26]) and the claim that the [SOT] token promotes background generation ([27]) are external, independently checkable results rather than self-citations. The central claim of 'precise adherence' does rely on an unstated empirical assumption that InstructPix2Pix's raw cross-attention maps already localize tokens to the user masks, and the CACM mechanism itself is specified only verbally without equations, while the ablation in Fig. 4 is qualitative and the MiE-Bench dataset is not released. These are reproducibility and evidence-quality concerns, not circularity: they do not show that the reported result is equivalent to its input by construction. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on pretrained InstructPix2Pix and hand-set control hyperparameters. The main unstated assumptions concern the spatial faithfulness of attention maps and the validity of concatenating prompt embeddings; neither is given independent evidence beyond qualitative examples.

free parameters (3)
  • Latent blending step threshold S = not reported
    Algorithm 1 lines 9-10 apply latent blending only when t > S; the value of S controls how much of the edit is anchored to the input latent, and no value or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Cross-attention enhancement weight = not reported
    Section III-B1 says enhancement is applied 'similar to [26]', but the strength of the enhancement is not specified; it is a hand-set control strength that affects prompt adherence.
  • Mask order Mo = user provided
    Algorithm 1 takes a mask order as input; the order can change how overlapping masks are composited, but no analysis of order sensitivity is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption InstructPix2Pix is a suitable base model for localized multi-instruction edits.
    The method builds entirely on IP2P's pretrained behavior; if IP2P cannot generate an object inside a mask, attention control cannot fix it. Invoked in Section III.
  • domain assumption Cross-attention maps of the UNet are spatially faithful enough that masking them to user regions yields correct local edits.
    Section III-B1; CACM works by restricting and enhancing attention inside masks, which only works if attention locality correlates with semantic location.
  • domain assumption CLIP text encoder allows concatenation of n prompts into a 77n token sequence without degrading conditioning.
    Section III-A; assumes separate encoding plus concatenation preserves each prompt's meaning and does not confuse the diffusion model.
  • domain assumption Self-attention isolation between masks prevents content interference.
    Section III-B2 and Figure 4; this premise is validated only qualitatively in the ablation study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PromptArtisan: Multi-instruction Image Editing in Single Pass with Complete Attention Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AFK34JVV

@misc{pith2026250210258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PromptArtisan: Multi-instruction Image Editing in Single Pass with Complete Attention Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AFK34JVV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10258}
}
read the original abstract

We present PromptArtisan, a groundbreaking approach to multi-instruction image editing that achieves remarkable results in a single pass, eliminating the need for time-consuming iterative refinement. Our method empowers users to provide multiple editing instructions, each associated with a specific mask within the image. This flexibility allows for complex edits involving mask intersections or overlaps, enabling the realization of intricate and nuanced image transformations. PromptArtisan leverages a pre-trained InstructPix2Pix model in conjunction with a novel Complete Attention Control Mechanism (CACM). This mechanism ensures precise adherence to user instructions, granting fine-grained control over the editing process. Furthermore, our approach is zero-shot, requiring no additional training, and boasts improved processing complexity compared to traditional iterative methods. By seamlessly integrating multi-instruction capabilities, single-pass efficiency, and complete attention control, PromptArtisan unlocks new possibilities for creative and efficient image editing workflows, catering to both novice and expert users alike.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PromptArtisan enables single pass editing with multiple mask-prompt pairs. Additionally, multiple mask-prompt pairs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall framework of the proposed method PromptArtisan. CACM Mechanism is the backbone of PromptArtisan, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of PromptArtisan with competitors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results of our ablation study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Additional capabilities of PromptArtisan. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Con- ference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual , H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, and H. Lin, Eds., 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis,

    P. Dhariwal and A. Q. Nichol, “Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual , M. Ranzato, A. Beygelz- imer, Y . N. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. W. Vaughan, Eds., 2021, pp. 8780–8794

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022 . IEEE, 2022, pp. 10 674– 10 685

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

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

    C. Saharia, W. Chan, S. Saxena, L. Li, J. Whang, E. L. Denton, S. K. S. Ghasemipour, R. G. Lopes, B. K. Ayan, T. Salimans, J. Ho, D. J. Fleet, and M. Norouzi, “Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems ...

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    SDXL: improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis,

    D. Podell, Z. English, K. Lacey, A. Blattmann, T. Dockhorn, J. M ¨uller, J. Penna, and R. Rombach, “SDXL: improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis,” CoRR, vol. abs/2307.01952, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    W¨urstchen: An efficient architecture for large-scale text-to-image dif- fusion models,

    P. Pernias, D. Rampas, M. L. Richter, C. Pal, and M. Aubreville, “W¨urstchen: An efficient architecture for large-scale text-to-image dif- fusion models,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024 . Open- Review.net, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions,

    T. Brooks, A. Holynski, and A. A. Efros, “Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, V ancouver , BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023 . IEEE, 2023, pp. 18 392–18 402

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction-guided image editing,

    K. Zhang, L. Mo, W. Chen, H. Sun, and Y . Su, “Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction-guided image editing,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023 , A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. ...

    work page 2023

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    MDP: A generalized framework for text-guided image editing by manipulating the diffusion path,

    Q. Wang, B. Zhang, M. Birsak, and P. Wonka, “MDP: A generalized framework for text-guided image editing by manipulating the diffusion path,” CoRR, vol. abs/2303.16765, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Zero- shot image-to-image translation,

    G. Parmar, K. K. Singh, R. Zhang, Y . Li, J. Lu, and J. Zhu, “Zero- shot image-to-image translation,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, SIGGRAPH 2023, Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 6-10, 2023, E. Brunvand, A. Sheffer, and M. Wimmer, Eds. ACM, 2023, pp. 11:1–11:11

    2023

  3. [11]

    Guiding instruction-based image editing via multimodal large language models,

    T. Fu, W. Hu, X. Du, W. Y . Wang, Y . Yang, and Z. Gan, “Guiding instruction-based image editing via multimodal large language models,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024 . OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

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

    Y . Huang, L. Xie, X. Wang, Z. Yuan, X. Cun, Y . Ge, J. Zhou, C. Dong, R. Huang, R. Zhang, and Y . Shan, “Smartedit: Exploring complex instruction-based image editing with multimodal large language models,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVP...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Instructdiffusion: A generalist modeling interface for vision tasks,

    Z. Geng, B. Yang, T. Hang, C. Li, S. Gu, T. Zhang, J. Bao, Z. Zhang, H. Hu, D. Chen, and B. Guo, “Instructdiffusion: A generalist modeling interface for vision tasks,” CoRR, vol. abs/2309.03895, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing,

    M. Cao, X. Wang, Z. Qi, Y . Shan, X. Qie, and Y . Zheng, “Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023 . IEEE, 2023, pp. 22 ...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Plug-and-play diffu- sion features for text-driven image-to-image translation,

    N. Tumanyan, M. Geyer, S. Bagon, and T. Dekel, “Plug-and-play diffu- sion features for text-driven image-to-image translation,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, V ancouver , BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1921–1930

    2023

  8. [16]

    GLIDE: towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models,

    A. Q. Nichol, P. Dhariwal, A. Ramesh, P. Shyam, P. Mishkin, B. Mc- Grew, I. Sutskever, and M. Chen, “GLIDE: towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Balt...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Blended diffusion for text- driven editing of natural images,

    O. Avrahami, D. Lischinski, and O. Fried, “Blended diffusion for text- driven editing of natural images,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022 . IEEE, 2022, pp. 18 187–18 197

    2022

  10. [18]

    Smartbrush: Text and shape guided object inpainting with diffusion model,

    S. Xie, Z. Zhang, Z. Lin, T. Hinz, and K. Zhang, “Smartbrush: Text and shape guided object inpainting with diffusion model,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, V ancouver , BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023 . IEEE, 2023, pp. 22 428– 22 437

    2023

  11. [19]

    Blended latent diffusion,

    O. Avrahami, O. Fried, and D. Lischinski, “Blended latent diffusion,” ACM Trans. Graph. , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 149:1–149:11, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” in 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014, Conference Track Proceedings , Y . Bengio and Y . LeCun, Eds., 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Designing a better asymmetric VQGAN for stablediffusion,

    Z. Zhu, X. Feng, D. Chen, J. Bao, L. Wang, Y . Chen, L. Yuan, and G. Hua, “Designing a better asymmetric VQGAN for stablediffusion,” CoRR, vol. abs/2306.04632, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hierar- chical text-conditional image generation with CLIP latents,

    A. Ramesh, P. Dhariwal, A. Nichol, C. Chu, and M. Chen, “Hierar- chical text-conditional image generation with CLIP latents,” CoRR, vol. abs/2204.06125, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention con- trol,

    A. Hertz, R. Mokady, J. Tenenbaum, K. Aberman, Y . Pritch, and D. Cohen-Or, “Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention con- trol,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023 . OpenReview.net, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” in 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021 . OpenReview.net, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever, “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine...

    2021

  18. [26]

    ediff-i: Text-to- image diffusion models with an ensemble of expert denoisers,

    Y . Balaji, S. Nah, X. Huang, A. Vahdat, J. Song, K. Kreis, M. Aittala, T. Aila, S. Laine, B. Catanzaro, T. Karras, and M. Liu, “ediff-i: Text-to- image diffusion models with an ensemble of expert denoisers,” CoRR, vol. abs/2211.01324, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Training-free layout control with cross-attention guidance,

    M. Chen, I. Laina, and A. Vedaldi, “Training-free layout control with cross-attention guidance,” in IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applica- tions of Computer Vision, WACV 2024, Waikoloa, HI, USA, January 3-8,

    2024

  20. [28]

    Diffedit: Diffusion- based semantic image editing with mask guidance,

    G. Couairon, J. Verbeek, H. Schwenk, and M. Cord, “Diffedit: Diffusion- based semantic image editing with mask guidance,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023 . OpenReview.net, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models,

    B. Kawar, S. Zada, O. Lang, O. Tov, H. Chang, T. Dekel, I. Mosseri, and M. Irani, “Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, V ancouver , BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023 . IEEE, 2023...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Null- text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models,

    R. Mokady, A. Hertz, K. Aberman, Y . Pritch, and D. Cohen-Or, “Null- text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, V ancouver , BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023 . IEEE, 2023, pp....

    2023

  23. [31]

    “Pexels,” https://www.pexels.com/, accessed: September 09, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Unsplash,

    “Unsplash,” https://unsplash.com/, accessed: September 09, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Pick-a-pic: An open dataset of user preferences for text-to-image generation,

    Y . Kirstain, A. Polyak, U. Singer, S. Matiana, J. Penna, and O. Levy, “Pick-a-pic: An open dataset of user preferences for text-to-image generation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, Neur...

    2023

  26. [2024]

    5331–5341

    IEEE, 2024, pp. 5331–5341

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.