Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Prompt-Free Conditional Diffusion for Multi-object Image Augmentation

T0 review · 4 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 A prompt-free conditional diffusion method generates multi-object augmentations that preserve per-category object counts while varying layout.

desk verdict A useful prompt-free augmentation recipe that deserves review, but the count-preservation claim is weaker than the abstract suggests and is undercut by the paper's own missing IQS metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06146 v1 pith:AP7WK5E4 submitted 2025-07-08 cs.CV

Haoyu Wang , Lei Zhang , Wei Wei , Chen Ding , Yanning Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords diffusionmodelsdatasetaugmentationmulti-objectimagegenerationprompt-freeconditioninglocal-globalsemanticfusioncountinglossrewardmodelobjectdetection
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 claims that a diffusion model can augment multi-object training images without any text prompt, using the seed image itself as the condition, and that a counting loss can enforce a per-category count guarantee: each generated image must contain at least as many objects of every category as its seed, while layout and composition are left free to vary. This matters because text-conditioned generation drifts from the target category distribution, and image-editing augmentation adds too little variation to help downstream models. The proposed framework reports better downstream detection and segmentation than existing baselines when generated images are mixed into COCO training, and better fidelity-diversity balance than prior variation methods. The core quantity that improves is the instance quantity score, which moves from 25.67 in the image-only baseline to 29.17 with the full method.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the local-global semantic fusion module and the reward-model counting loss. The fusion module uses the CLIP image encoder to encode the whole seed image together with up to nine cropped instances, producing a condition $C(p^{img}_i)$ in the same feature space as the text encoder, so the latent diffusion model can be adapted by LoRA without retraining the full network. The counting loss $L^C_i$ (Eq. 7) sums, over categories, the ReLU distance between a threshold $\tau$ and the top-$k$ confidence scores returned by Grounding DINO on a one-step denoising estimate $x^*_i$ (Eq. 5), with $k$ equal to the seed object count for that category; it is added to the MSE denoising loss with weight $\lambda$. This counts objects without constraining their positions, which is what allows layout diversity to coexist with count preservation.

What would settle it

Count objects in the final 50-step generated images with an independent detector at multiple confidence thresholds and compare with the counts returned on the one-step estimates used for Eq. 5; if the one-step counts do not track the final counts across timesteps and seeds, the counting loss cannot deliver its per-category count guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that replacing text prompts with a local-global image condition—global CLIP features of the whole seed image plus features of up to nine cropped instances—and adding a reward-model counting loss produces augmentations whose per-category object counts are at least those of the input image. The counting loss detects objects in a one-step denoised estimate of the generated image with an open-vocabulary detector, and penalizes the top-k confidence scores of each category when they fall below a threshold, without ever constraining bounding-box positions. This is the mechanism the paper says “bridges the quantity deviation” between generated and original data while improving diversity, and it is supported by the reported gains in instance quantity score and by the downstream Mask R-CNN mAP increase from 38.65 to 39.04 on COCO.

Load-bearing premise

The counting loss is trained on a noisy one-step denoising estimate, and the method assumes that the detector's top-k confidence on that estimate faithfully reflects the object counts in the final 50-step generated image.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mixing 10,000 generated images into COCO train2017 raises Mask R-CNN bbox mAP from 38.65 to 39.04 and mask mAP from 35.24 to 35.43.
  • The instance quantity score reaches 29.17 with the full method, up from 25.67 for the image-only baseline, while diversity score rises from 0.36 to 0.71.
  • Because the condition is an image rather than a category-name prompt, the method generalizes to categories absent from COCO and to cross-view remote sensing images, as shown in the out-of-domain experiments.
  • Augmenting an already-augmented image recurrently preserves object counts and increases layout spread, so the augmentation can be applied repeatedly to a single seed.
  • Counting constraints apply per category, not per pixel or box, so the model can vary background and layout while keeping quantity fidelity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the method's load-bearing proxy would be to compute the counting loss on the final 50-step sample instead of the one-step estimate; if the IQS gap to real data (29.17 vs 45.02) narrows, the proxy mismatch is the cause.
  • The counting reward could be combined with a spatial-diversity term (for example, a penalty on layout similarity between paired generations) to make the trade-off between count fidelity and layout variation explicit rather than emergent.
  • The downstream gain of roughly 0.4 mAP is small compared with typical Mask R-CNN training noise; re-running the augmentation mixing with several seeds would indicate whether the gain is stable.
  • Because the framework conditions on images, it should extend to attribute-heavy or predicate-heavy datasets where text prompts are known to be imprecise, though the paper only demonstrates categories and scenes.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a prompt-free conditional diffusion framework for multi-object image augmentation. It replaces text conditioning with a local-global semantic fusion of the input image and adds a Grounding DINO-based counting loss that, per Eq. (6)-(7), penalizes missing objects relative to per-category counts of the conditioning image. The method is evaluated on COCO with FID, DS, and a proposed IQS metric, plus Mask R-CNN downstream mAP. The paper reports best FID/DS among image-variation baselines and best bbox mAP (39.04) among all compared augmentation methods. The central claim is that generated images preserve or increase per-category object counts while diversifying layout.

Significance. If the claimed count preservation holds, the method is useful for multi-object augmentation because it avoids text-category bias and layout rigidity. The paper does provide reproducible code, detailed hyperparameters (supplement Table 1), ablations for each component (Tables 3-5), and out-of-domain qualitative results. However, the central claim is currently only supported by an unpublished IQS metric, and the reported IQS values contradict the 'counts do not decrease' claim (29.17 vs 45.02 for real COCO).

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §4.4, Table 2] The central requirement ol >= oj in Sec. 3.1 is not met by the paper's own metric: Table 2 reports IQS 29.17 for generated images vs 45.02 for real COCO val2017 (35% lower). The text in §4.4 only notes that Add SD is lower than the original, but does not reconcile the shortfall of the proposed method. Because IQS is the only quantitative evidence for count preservation, either the claim should be relaxed or per-image/per-category count-difference statistics on final 50-step samples must be reported.
  2. [§4.4 and Supplement §1.2] The IQS algorithm is said to be 'shown in Appendix', but the supplementary material contains no IQS algorithm; Supplement §1.2 defines only FID and DS. Since Tables 2-5 rely on IQS, the central claim is currently not independently checkable. The authors should include the exact IQS computation (detector confidence settings, per-category aggregation, comparison protocol).
  3. [§3.4, Eq. (5), Algorithm 1] The counting loss is computed on a one-step denoised estimate x*_i at a random timestep t, while inference uses 50-step Euler sampling. The paper does not demonstrate that gradients through this one-step proxy control object counts in the final images. A direct check--counting objects in final 50-step samples with the same Grounding DINO model used in Eq. (6)--should be added; if the proxy is unreliable, the count-preservation mechanism is unsupported.
  4. [§4.3, Eq. (6)] The augmentation pipeline is optimized for Grounding DINO confidences (Eq. 6), and downstream annotations for the proposed method are also generated by Grounding DINO + SAM (Sec. 4.3). This circularity could inflate downstream mAP relative to methods whose annotations are not matched to their training signal. Please report downstream results with an alternative annotator (e.g., crowd-sourced COCO labels for generated data or a different open-vocabulary detector) to rule out this confound.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] There are repeated grammar and typographical issues, e.g., 'Diffusion models has underpinned' and 'augementated'; the paper would benefit from a careful copyedit.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The symbol ϵt is used for the noise prediction network, which conflicts with the noise ϵt at timestep t; use ϵθ consistently.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains an unnumbered bullet and the phrase 'Dataset Diffusion decrease in object amount' is grammatically incomplete; please revise.
  4. [Supplement §1.2] The metric is called 'LSIPS' but the referenced metric is LPIPS; this typo should be fixed.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'Code is available at here' does not resolve to a URL in the PDF; please provide the full link.
  6. [Table 2] For the val2017 row, FID and DS are listed as '-'; the paper should explain explicitly why these are not computed for real validation images.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation is not equivalent to its inputs, though the count-preservation evidence is weakened by an omitted IQS algorithm and a same-detector pseudo-labeling pipeline.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular by construction. The counting loss (Eq. 6-7) supervises Grounding DINO's top-k confidences on a one-step denoised estimate, while the reported count-preservation metric IQS uses a different detector (YOLOv8m), so the loss does not directly optimize the reported metric by definition. The method is also checked against external benchmarks: Mask R-CNN mAP on human-annotated COCO val2017 (Table 1), FID, and LPIPS-based DS. I flag two non-circular validity concerns rather than circular steps: (i) the IQS algorithm is promised in Sec. 4.1 ('Algorithm is shown in Appendix') but is absent from the submitted supplement, making the count-preservation claim hard to falsify from the manuscript; and (ii) Table 2 reports IQS 29.17 for generated images vs 45.02 for real COCO, which sits uneasily with the Sec. 3.1 requirement o_l >= o_j, an internal-consistency issue rather than a reduction of the derivation to its inputs. The same-detector pipeline (Grounding DINO used both as the reward model in Eq. 6-7 and, with SAM, as the pseudo-labeler for downstream data in Sec. 4.3) creates a possible home-court effect, but the downstream mAP is still measured on real COCO labels, so the claimed transfer gain is not logically forced by the loss. The only self-citation found is the aside to [Chen et al., 2023] in the introduction, which is not load-bearing. Accordingly, the circularity score is low and reflects minor self-referential evaluation choices, not a definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on (i) CLIP image features substituting for text features in SDXL's conditioner, (ii) Grounding DINO confidence as a count proxy, and (iii) one-step denoising as a proxy for final samples. None are proven in the paper; items (ii) and (iii) are partially contradicted by the IQS shortfall in Table 2 (29.17 vs 45.02). The main free parameters are the counting-loss hyperparameters tau, gamma, lambda, plus content length M, crop padding, and LoRA rank. No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated; the 'reward model based counting loss' is an objective function, not an entity.

free parameters (6)
  • counting-loss threshold tau = 0.1
    Confidence threshold in Eq. 6 that decides when a detection counts toward the per-category count; hand-chosen, sensitivity reported on the validation set (Supplemental Table 2a).
  • counting-loss warm-up step gamma = 1000
    Training step after which the counting loss activates (Algorithm 1); hand-chosen, sensitivity reported on val2017 (Supplemental Table 2b).
  • counting-loss weight lambda = 0.5
    Weight of the counting loss L_C in Eq. 8; hand-chosen, sensitivity reported on val2017 (Supplemental Table 2c).
  • content length M = 9
    Number of cropped instance patches fed to the image encoder (Sec. 3.3); set to 9 as a compute-accuracy trade-off and not ablated.
  • crop padding pad = not reported
    Hyperparameter of Crop() in Eq. 3 controlling outward cropping pixels when extracting local instances; its numeric value is not stated in the paper.
  • LoRA rank = 128
    Rank of the LoRA adapter injected into the UNet (Supplemental Table 1); a capacity choice made by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Latent diffusion with the MSE noise-prediction loss yields a valid sampler when conditioned on image features in the CLIP text-encoder space.
    Used in Sec. 3.2-3.3; the paper fine-tunes SDXL with LoRA but does not verify that CLIP image features E_img(pimg) live in the same conditioning space as the original text features beyond citing CLIP's paired training.
  • domain assumption The top-k confidence of Grounding DINO, thresholded at tau, is a monotone and sufficiently accurate measure of whether an object of category c_j is present in the image.
    Eq. 6 and Algorithm 1; the counting loss is meaningless if detector confidence is not a faithful count proxy. The IQS gap to real images in Table 2 suggests the proxy is imperfect.
  • domain assumption One-step denoised predictions (Eq. 5) used during training faithfully represent the object-count statistics of final 50-step generated images.
    Algorithm 1 applies the counting loss to x*_i from a single DDPM step at random t; if one-step estimates are noisy or biased, the gradient does not enforce counts at inference.
  • domain assumption LoRA fine-tuning of the UNet is sufficient to adapt SDXL to the target dataset without retraining the conditioning encoder.
    Sec. 3.3-3.4 and Supplemental Table 1; the paper fixes E_img and E_text and trains only LoRA parameters, relying on zero-shot transfer of the frozen encoder.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prompt-Free Conditional Diffusion for Multi-object Image Augmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AP7WK5E4

@misc{pith2026250706146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prompt-Free Conditional Diffusion for Multi-object Image Augmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AP7WK5E4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06146}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models has underpinned much recent advances of dataset augmentation in various computer vision tasks. However, when involving generating multi-object images as real scenarios, most existing methods either rely entirely on text condition, resulting in a deviation between the generated objects and the original data, or rely too much on the original images, resulting in a lack of diversity in the generated images, which is of limited help to downstream tasks. To mitigate both problems with one stone, we propose a prompt-free conditional diffusion framework for multi-object image augmentation. Specifically, we introduce a local-global semantic fusion strategy to extract semantics from images to replace text, and inject knowledge into the diffusion model through LoRA to alleviate the category deviation between the original model and the target dataset. In addition, we design a reward model based counting loss to assist the traditional reconstruction loss for model training. By constraining the object counts of each category instead of pixel-by-pixel constraints, bridging the quantity deviation between the generated data and the original data while improving the diversity of the generated data. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method over several representative state-of-the-art baselines and showcase strong downstream task gain and out-of-domain generalization capabilities. Code is available at \href{https://github.com/00why00/PFCD}{here}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison with state-of-the-art image augmentation methods. Dataset Diffusion decrease in object amount with low annotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed prompt-free conditional diffusion framework. We introduce a local-global semantic fusion strategy to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison. We compare with Dataset Diffusion w/SDXL and SDXL img2img, ControlNet Reference-Only, Versatile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Out-of-domain experimental results under two settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Recurrent generation for a given condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Recurrent generation for a given condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Recurrent generation for another given condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitive ablation result. We manually annotated the instances for better visualization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Data augmentation generative adversarial networks

    Antreas Antoniou, Amos Storkey, and Harrison Edwards. Data augmentation generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.04340 , 2017

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Obtaining favorable layouts for multiple object generation, 2024

    Barak Battash, Amit Rozner, Lior Wolf, and Ofir Lindenbaum. Obtaining favorable layouts for multiple object generation, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Make it count: Text-to-image generation with an accurate number of objects, 2024

    Lital Binyamin, Yoad Tewel, Hilit Segev, Eran Hirsch, Royi Rassin, and Gal Chechik. Make it count: Text-to-image generation with an accurate number of objects, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Adapt anything: Tailor any image classifiers across domains and categories using text-to-image diffusion models, 2023

    Weijie Chen, Haoyu Wang, Shicai Yang, Lei Zhang, Wei Wei, Yanning Zhang, Luojun Lin, Di Xie, and Yueting Zhuang. Adapt anything: Tailor any image classifiers across domains and categories using text-to-image diffusion models, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 248--255. Ieee, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or

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

    2022

  8. [8]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 770--778, 2016

    2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Mask r-cnn

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Doll \'a r, and Ross Girshick. Mask r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 2961--2969, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Is synthetic data from generative models ready for image recognition? In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    Ruifei He, Shuyang Sun, Xin Yu, Chuhui Xue, Wenqing Zhang, Philip Torr, Song Bai, and XIAOJUAN QI. Is synthetic data from generative models ready for image recognition? In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

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

    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 equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance, 2022

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Ultralytics YOLOv8

    Glenn Jocher, Ayush Chaurasia, and Jing Qiu. Ultralytics YOLOv8 . https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics, 2023. Accessed: 2024-09-19

    2023

  7. [15]

    Segment anything

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 4015--4026, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Controlnet++: Improving conditional controls with efficient consistency feedback, 2024

    Ming Li, Taojiannan Yang, Huafeng Kuang, Jie Wu, Zhaoning Wang, Xuefeng Xiao, and Chen Chen. Controlnet++: Improving conditional controls with efficient consistency feedback, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll \'a r, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Procee...

    2014

  10. [18]

    Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection, 2024

    Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Qing Jiang, Chunyuan Li, Jianwei Yang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, and Lei Zhang. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization, 2019

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Dataset diffusion: Diffusion-based synthetic data generation for pixel-level semantic segmentation

    Quang Nguyen, Truong Vu, Anh Tran, and Khoi Nguyen. Dataset diffusion: Diffusion-based synthetic data generation for pixel-level semantic segmentation. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Sy...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models, 2022

    Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    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 supervision. In International conference on machine learning , p...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents, 2022

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos, 2024

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, Ronghang Hu, Chaitanya Ryali, Tengyu Ma, Haitham Khedr, Roman Rädle, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Eric Mintun, Junting Pan, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Nicolas Carion, Chao-Yuan Wu, Ross Girshick, Piotr Dollár, and Christoph Feichtenh...

    2024

  18. [26]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj \"o rn 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

    2022

  19. [27]

    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 2250...

    2023

  20. [28]

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

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Gen2det: Generate to detect

    Saksham Suri, Fanyi Xiao, Animesh Sinha, Sean Culatana, Raghuraman Krishnamoorthi, Chenchen Zhu, and Abhinav Shrivastava. Gen2det: Generate to detect. In Synthetic Data for Computer Vision Workshop@ CVPR 2024 , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Instancediffusion: Instance-level control for image generation

    Xudong Wang, Trevor Darrell, Sai Saketh Rambhatla, Rohit Girdhar, and Ishan Misra. Instancediffusion: Instance-level control for image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6232--6242, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Improving compositional text-to-image generation with large vision-language models, 2023

    Song Wen, Guian Fang, Renrui Zhang, Peng Gao, Hao Dong, and Dimitris Metaxas. Improving compositional text-to-image generation with large vision-language models, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Paragraph-to-image generation with information-enriched diffusion model, 2023

    Weijia Wu, Zhuang Li, Yefei He, Mike Zheng Shou, Chunhua Shen, Lele Cheng, Yan Li, Tingting Gao, Di Zhang, and Zhongyuan Wang. Paragraph-to-image generation with information-enriched diffusion model, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Datasetdm: Synthesizing data with perception annotations using diffusion models

    Weijia Wu, Yuzhong Zhao, Hao Chen, Yuchao Gu, Rui Zhao, Yefei He, Hong Zhou, Mike Zheng Shou, and Chunhua Shen. Datasetdm: Synthesizing data with perception annotations using diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:54683--54695, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Mosaicfusion: Diffusion models as data augmenters for large vocabulary instance segmentation, 2023

    Jiahao Xie, Wei Li, Xiangtai Li, Ziwei Liu, Yew Soon Ong, and Chen Change Loy. Mosaicfusion: Diffusion models as data augmenters for large vocabulary instance segmentation, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Versatile diffusion: Text, images and variations all in one diffusion model

    Xingqian Xu, Zhangyang Wang, Gong Zhang, Kai Wang, and Humphrey Shi. Versatile diffusion: Text, images and variations all in one diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 7754--7765, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Prompt-free diffusion: Taking" text" out of text-to-image diffusion models

    Xingqian Xu, Jiayi Guo, Zhangyang Wang, Gao Huang, Irfan Essa, and Humphrey Shi. Prompt-free diffusion: Taking" text" out of text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 8682--8692, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Add-sd: Rational generation without manual reference

    Lingfeng Yang, Xinyu Zhang, Xiang Li, Jinwen Chen, Kun Yao, Gang Zhang, Errui Ding, Lingqiao Liu, Jingdong Wang, and Jian Yang. Add-sd: Rational generation without manual reference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21016 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 586--595, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 3836--3847, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    X-paste: Revisiting scalable copy-paste for instance segmentation using clip and stablediffusion

    Hanqing Zhao, Dianmo Sheng, Jianmin Bao, Dongdong Chen, Dong Chen, Fang Wen, Lu Yuan, Ce Liu, Wenbo Zhou, Qi Chu, et al. X-paste: Revisiting scalable copy-paste for instance segmentation using clip and stablediffusion. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 42...

    2023

  33. [41]

    Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision

    Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2818--2826, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Zone evaluation: Revealing spatial bias in object detection

    Zhaohui Zheng, Yuming Chen, Qibin Hou, Xiang Li, Ping Wang, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Zone evaluation: Revealing spatial bias in object detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

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