Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Towards Efficient Exemplar Based Image Editing with Multimodal VLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 ReEdit claims that exemplar-based image editing can be made optimization-free by combining a VLM's textual description with a CLIP-space edit vector, and that this is both higher quality and about 4x faster than the prior…

desk verdict ReEdit is a reasonable, mostly-incremental combination of LLaVA captioning, CLIP edit-vector conditioning, and Plug-and-Play injection, with a plausible speed advantage over VISII, but the load-bearing image-space conditioning is never validated or ablated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20155 v1 pith:BTKJHISD submitted 2025-06-25 cs.CV

Avadhoot Jadhav , Ashutosh Srivastava , Abhinav Java , Silky Singh , Tarun Ram Menta , Surgan Jandial , Balaji Krishnamurthy This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords exemplar-basedimageeditingdiffusionmodelsmultimodalVLMsCLIPembeddingspaceattentionandfeatureinjectionLLaVAStableoptimization-freeinference
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 tries to establish that the edit shown in a before/after image pair can be transferred to a new photograph without any per-example optimization. Its proposed pipeline, ReEdit, captures the edit twice: as a text caption generated by a multimodal VLM (a model that reads images and writes natural language), and as a difference vector in CLIP embedding space, the shared image-and-text representation used by the model. A frozen text-to-image diffusion model is then conditioned on this combined signal while attention and feature injection preserve the content image's structure. On a 170-example benchmark the method beats optimization-based baselines on several structural and perceptual metrics and runs about four times faster. If correct, this makes exemplar editing cheap, interactive, and automatically upgraded whenever better off-the-shelf diffusion models appear.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the edit embedding $g$ formed by concatenating a text embedding and an image-space edit direction. The image direction $\Delta_{\mathrm{img}} = \mathrm{pool}(E_{\mathrm{img}}(x_{\mathrm{edit}})-E_{\mathrm{img}}(x))$ is the difference of CLIP embeddings of the edited and original exemplars after pooling to the required size. Complementary to that, the VLM verbalization $g_{\mathrm{caption}}$ is encoded by the CLIP text encoder. The second mechanism is structural conditioning: DDIM inversion of the content image yields a noise latent, and the denoiser runs twice—once to record feature maps and self-attention entries, and once conditioned on $g$ while injecting those features at the fourth upsampling layer and replacing keys and queries in self-attention layers 4 to 11, following the Plug-and-Play features recipe.

What would settle it

One decisive experiment is to ablate the image-space branch by setting $\Delta_{\mathrm{img}}$ to zero and keeping only the LLaVA text caption; if the edited outputs do not degrade on LPIPS and human preference, the CLIP delta is not doing the claimed work. A complementary check computes $\Delta_{\mathrm{img}}$ for the same semantic edit using several different exemplar pairs; if those vectors have low cosine similarity, the transferability assumption behind the method fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a pretrained text-to-image diffusion model can apply the edit of an exemplar pair to a new image with no training or optimization. The edit is represented by $g = \mathrm{concat}(\Delta_{\mathrm{img}}, E_{\mathrm{text}}(g_{\mathrm{caption}}))$, where $\Delta_{\mathrm{img}} = \mathrm{pool}(E_{\mathrm{img}}(x_{\mathrm{edit}}) - E_{\mathrm{img}}(x))$ is the pooled CLIP image-embedding difference and $E_{\mathrm{text}}(g_{\mathrm{caption}})$ is the CLIP embedding of the VLM-generated caption. The content image is DDIM-inverted, and a parallel denoising run conditioned on $g$ injects the inverted features and swapped self-attention from the content image, so the edit lands while the surrounding structure stays intact. The authors report that this pipeline outperforms the VISII optimization baseline and Instruct-Pix2Pix variants on LPIPS, SSIM, human preference score, CLIP score, and directional similarity, and is roughly 4x faster than VISII.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the CLIP-space difference between the two exemplar images is a transferable representation of the edit, so the same conceptual change applied to a different content image shifts CLIP embeddings in roughly the same direction and lets the diffusion model reproduce the edit from that vector alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exemplar editing becomes an inference-time operation, taking about 140 seconds per image instead of nine-plus minutes, so interactive use and batch processing are practical.
  • The method is independent of the base diffusion model, so it can be ported to newer text-to-image backbones without retraining an editing module.
  • The combined text-plus-CLIP-delta conditioning covers both global edits (style, scene) and localized semantic edits (object identity, attributes), while structure preservation keeps non-edited regions stable.
  • The curated dataset of 170 exemplar pairs with ground-truth edited images offers a standardized evaluation target for future work on exemplar-based editing.
  • Removing the optimization step eliminates per-example training loops and the hyperparameters that come with them, leaving the edit capture dependent only on the fixed base models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not pursue is edit composition: if the CLIP-space delta is a true transferable direction, adding or interpolating deltas from several exemplar pairs would perform multiple edits on one image in a single denoising pass.
  • The mechanism suggests a direct control: scaling $\Delta_{\mathrm{img}}$ should scale how strongly the edit is applied, giving an intensity slider that the paper does not report.
  • Because the pipeline reuses off-the-shelf components, its ceiling is set by the VLM's ability to verbalize fine visual changes and the diffusion model's semantic alignment, so upgrading either component should directly improve edit fidelity.
  • The 170-example dataset is assembled from instruction-editing corpora; whether the method retains its advantage on purpose-built exemplar datasets with more diverse edit types remains an open empirical question.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes ReEdit, an inference-time, optimization-free pipeline for exemplar-based image editing. Given an exemplar pair (x, x_edit) and a content image y, ReEdit uses a multimodal VLM (LLaVA) to verbalize the edit as a text description g_caption, computes a CLIP image-space edit vector Δ_img = pool(E_img(x_edit) - E_img(x)), concatenates it with the text embedding to form g, and conditions Stable Diffusion with g while injecting features and modifying self-attention via Plug-and-Play [32] to preserve structure. The authors curate a 170-example dataset and report quantitative results on seven metrics against VISII and Instruct-pix2pix baselines, claiming an approximately 4x speedup and superior LPIPS/SSIM.

Significance. If the claims hold, ReEdit would be a fast, training-free alternative to optimization-based exemplar editing, and the curated dataset could support standardized evaluation. However, the significance is currently limited by the untested image-space conditioning, the narrow baseline set, and the statistical reporting; the paper's central contribution is plausible but not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2a] The image-space edit vector Δ_img is the central novelty of the method, but its construction and usage are underspecified and unvalidated. The definition Δ_img = pool(E_img(x_edit) - E_img(x)) and the final embedding g = concat(Δ_img, E_text(g_caption)) do not specify the dimension of Δ_img, the nature of the pool operator, or how the concatenated vector is shaped into the token sequence (typically 77×768) expected by Stable Diffusion's cross-attention. More importantly, no ablation removes or randomizes Δ_img, so the contribution of the image branch is unknown. Without such an ablation, the claim in Section 2a that 'Both the image and text conditioning in g work in tandem' is unsupported; the reported gains could be attributable entirely to the LLaVA caption plus Plug-and-Play feature injection.
  2. [Section 3, Table 1] The uncertainty representation in Table 1 is uninterpretable: the table reports 'mean ± coefficient of variance', which is not a valid way to express dispersion for these metrics. Coefficient of variation is a dimensionless ratio, so e.g. LPIPS 0.16±0.4812 does not communicate a standard deviation or confidence interval. No significance tests are reported, yet Section 1 claims 'significant improvements in quantitative scores'; this claim is not supported. In addition, FID is reported as a single number without variance, which is unreliable for a dataset of only 170 images.
  3. [Section 3] The baseline set is too narrow to support the paper's claim of outperforming exemplar-based editing methods. The introduction lists ImageBrush [36], Paint by Example [35], Diffusion Image Analogies [31], and Visual Style Prompting [14], but the experiments compare only against VISII and Instruct-pix2pix. Including at least one recent exemplar-based baseline is necessary to contextualize the reported gains and to demonstrate that the improvements are not specific to the chosen comparisons.
  4. [Section 3] The curated dataset of 170 examples, presented as a tangible contribution, is described only by its sources (Instruct-Pix2Pix, HQ-Edit, Imagic). No details are provided on the distribution of edit types, the selection criteria, or the release plan, and the ground-truth images come from heterogeneous datasets with different edit definitions. This prevents reproduction and makes the combined evaluation difficult to interpret. If the dataset is to be a contribution, its composition and access should be specified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2a] The prompts p1 and p2 used to query LLaVA are not provided, and the 20-word limit for g_caption is introduced without justification.
  2. [Section 2b] The description of feature injection and self-attention modification is vague; specifying 'fourth layer' and 'layers 4 to 11' in terms of the U-Net architecture would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Section 1] The claim that the method is 'independent of the base diffusion model' is not demonstrated, as experiments use only Stable Diffusion.
  4. [Figure 2] The qualitative analysis would benefit from failure cases and a clearer explanation of what each row shows.
  5. [Abstract] The claim '~4x faster' is based on a single runtime comparison; reporting the hardware and full pipeline timing would strengthen it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant derivation circularity; the only self-referential element is the Dir. Similarity metric partially measuring the CLIP edit direction already used as conditioning.

  1. other [Section 2a (Capturing Edits from exemplars) and Section 3 (Experimental Setup)]
    "we also capture the edits from (x, xedit) directly in CLIP's embedding space: ∆ img = pool(Eimg(xedit)−Eimg(x)) ... faithfulness of the edit with the exemplar pair (CLIP score [10], Dir. Similarity [7], S-Visual [26])"

    Dir. Similarity (ref [7]) is a CLIP-space alignment of edit directions. ReEdit's conditioning g is built from exactly the exemplar CLIP edit direction Δ_img. Consequently, the Dir. Similarity score partly verifies that the output reproduces the conditioning vector, rather than independently confirming edit transfer. This is a mild self-referential evaluation, not a parameter fit; the LPIPS/SSIM/HPS results remain independent evidence.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular by construction. Δ_img is an input-derived conditioning vector computed from the exemplar pair; it is not a fitted parameter and is not optimized on the evaluation data. The output is produced by DDIM inversion, feature injection, and cross-attention conditioning, so it is not algebraically equal to any input. The paper does not rely on self-citations for its central premise: the feature-injection machinery is credited to external prior work (Plug-and-Play), and the captioning uses a pretrained VLM. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no empirical result is renamed as a first-principles derivation. The only mild issue is that one of the seven metrics, Dir. Similarity, measures CLIP edit-direction alignment, and the method explicitly conditions on that same direction; therefore that metric is partially self-referential. However, the paper's headline improvements (LPIPS 0.16 vs 0.20, SSIM 0.63 vs 0.62, ~4x faster) do not reduce to this input and stand as independent empirical claims. Overall score 2 reflects a minor evaluation overlap, not a circular derivation.

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

The central claim rests on the transferability of CLIP edit-direction vectors across images, the sufficiency of a 20-word LLaVA caption, the validity of Plug-and-Play attention injection for structure preservation, and an unspecified mechanism to inject a concatenated image-delta plus text embedding into Stable Diffusion. These are domain assumptions or paper-specific choices rather than standard mathematical axioms. Hand-picked hyperparameters (20-word limit, layer 4 injection, self-attention layers 4-11) are fitted to intuition, not validated by sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (4)
  • caption_token_limit = 20 words
    LLaVA output truncated to 20 words to reduce token length; no sensitivity analysis.
  • feature_injection_layer = layer 4 (upsampling block)
    Features injected at fourth layer, following prior structure-preservation work; no ablation.
  • self_attention_modified_layers = layers 4 to 11
    Keys and queries replaced in self-attention layers 4 through 11; hand-chosen without sensitivity study.
  • pool_operator_for_clip_delta = not specified
    Operator that resizes the CLIP image edit direction to the size required by the diffusion model; not described in the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CLIP image edit direction (Eimg(x_edit) - Eimg(x)) is a transferable representation of the edit such that the same edit applied to a different content image will produce a similar direction in CLIP space.
    This is the core of the image-space conditioning branch; no validation is provided to confirm CLIP edit directions are content-invariant.
  • domain assumption A 20-word LLaVA description captures the semantic edit sufficiently for guiding the diffusion process.
    The text branch is essential, but caption quality is not evaluated and no ablation with longer or shorter captions is reported.
  • domain assumption Plug-and-play attention and feature injection preserves the original image structure while allowing the edit to be applied.
    The method relies on prior work [32] that was designed for text-driven edits; its suitability for exemplar-driven edits is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The concatenated vector g = concat(Delta_img, Etext(gcaption)) can be used as a conditioning signal for Stable Diffusion.
    The paper does not explain how this nonstandard concatenation is injected into the model's cross-attention; it is a paper-specific construction without architectural details.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Efficient Exemplar Based Image Editing with Multimodal VLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BTKJHISD

@misc{pith2026250620155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Efficient Exemplar Based Image Editing with Multimodal VLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BTKJHISD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20155}
}
read the original abstract

Text-to-Image Diffusion models have enabled a wide array of image editing applications. However, capturing all types of edits through text alone can be challenging and cumbersome. The ambiguous nature of certain image edits is better expressed through an exemplar pair, i.e., a pair of images depicting an image before and after an edit respectively. In this work, we tackle exemplar-based image editing -- the task of transferring an edit from an exemplar pair to a content image(s), by leveraging pretrained text-to-image diffusion models and multimodal VLMs. Even though our end-to-end pipeline is optimization-free, our experiments demonstrate that it still outperforms baselines on multiple types of edits while being ~4x faster.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20155 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our framework ReEdit. For details, please refer Section 2. a. Capturing Edits from exemplars. We posit that textual descriptions are necessary but not sufficient to generate yˆedit from (x, xedit, y). Consequently, we capture edits in both text and image space. Firstly, we leverage a multimodal VLM (LLaVA [20–22]) to verbalize the edits in the exemplar pair (x, xedit). We pass these images as a grid, alo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative comparison of our framework ReEdit with strong baselines (VISII, Instruct￾pix2pix) for exemplar-based image editing. ReEdit consistently produces images with higher edit accuracy and better consistency in non-edited regions compared to the baselines. Zoom in for better view. We support our quantitative findings with qualitative examples illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Tumanyan, N., Geyer, M., Bagon, S., Dekel, T.: Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 1921–1930 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [36]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36(2024)

    Yang, Y., Peng, H., Shen, Y., Yang, Y., Hu, H., Qiu, L., Koike, H., et al.: Image- brush: Learning visual in-context instructions for exemplar-based image manipu- lation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36(2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [35]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Yang, B., Gu, S., Zhang, B., Zhang, T., Chen, X., Sun, X., Chen, D., Wen, F.: Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 18381–18391 (2023) 8 A. Jadhav, A. Srivastava et al

    work page 2023

  4. [31]

    In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings

    Šubrtová, A., Lukáč, M., Čech, J., Futschik, D., Shechtman, E., S` ykora, D.: Dif- fusion image analogies. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings. pp. 1–10 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12974 (2024)

    Jeong, J., Kim, J., Choi, Y., Lee, G., Uh, Y.: Visual style prompting with swapping self-attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12974 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  6. [1]

    In: Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision

    Alaluf, Y., Patashnik, O., Wu, Z., Zamir, A., Shechtman, E., Lischinski, D., Cohen- Or, D.: Third time’s the charm? image and video editing with stylegan3. In: Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 204–220. Springer (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [2]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 25005–25017 (2022)

    Bar, A., Gandelsman, Y., Darrell, T., Globerson, A., Efros, A.: Visual prompt- ing via image inpainting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 25005–25017 (2022)

    2022

  8. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Brooks, T., Holynski, A., Efros, A.A.: Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 18392–18402 (2023)

    2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11427 (2022)

    Couairon, G., Verbeek, J., Schwenk, H., Cord, M.: Diffedit: Diffusion-based seman- tic image editing with mask guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11427 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  2. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618 (2022)

    Gal, R., Alaluf, Y., Atzmon, Y., Patashnik, O., Bermano, A.H., Chechik, G., Cohen-Or, D.: An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image gener- ation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  3. [6]

    ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (TOG)41(4), 1–13 (2022)

    Gal, R., Patashnik, O., Maron, H., Bermano, A.H., Chechik, G., Cohen-Or, D.: Stylegan-nada: Clip-guided domain adaptation of image generators. ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (TOG)41(4), 1–13 (2022)

    2022

  4. [7]

    corr abs/2108.00946 (2021)

    Gal, R., Patashnik, O., Maron, H., Chechik, G., Cohen-Or, D.: Stylegan-nada: clip- guided domain adaptation of image generators. corr abs/2108.00946 (2021). arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.00946 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  5. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626 (2022)

    Hertz, A., Mokady, R., Tenenbaum, J., Aberman, K., Pritch, Y., Cohen-Or, D.: Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  6. [9]

    In: Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2, pp

    Hertzmann, A., Jacobs, C.E., Oliver, N., Curless, B., Salesin, D.H.: Image analo- gies. In: Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2, pp. 557–570 (2023)

    2023

  7. [10]

    Hessel, J., Holtzman, A., Forbes, M., Bras, R.L., Choi, Y.: Clipscore: A reference- freeevaluationmetricforimagecaptioning.arXivpreprintarXiv:2104.08718(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  8. [11]

    Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    Heusel,M.,Ramsauer,H.,Unterthiner,T.,Nessler,B.,Hochreiter,S.:Ganstrained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    2017

  9. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13495 (2023)

    Huang, Z., Wu, T., Jiang, Y., Chan, K.C., Liu, Z.: Reversion: Diffusion-based relation inversion from images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13495 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  10. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09990 (2024)

    Hui, M., Yang, S., Zhao, B., Shi, Y., Wang, H., Wang, P., Zhou, Y., Xie, C.: Hq- edit: A high-quality dataset for instruction-based image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09990 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Karras, T., Laine, S., Aila, T.: A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 4401–4410 (2019)

    2019

  12. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Kawar, B., Zada, S., Lang, O., Tov, O., Chang, H., Dekel, T., Mosseri, I., Irani, M.: Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 6007–6017 (2023)

    2023

  13. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Kim, G., Kwon, T., Ye, J.C.: Diffusionclip: Text-guided diffusion models for robust image manipulation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2426–2435 (2022) Towards Efficient Exemplar Based Image Editing with Multimodal VLMs 7

    2022

  14. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10960 (2022)

    Kwon, M., Jeong, J., Uh, Y.: Diffusion models already have a semantic latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10960 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  15. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.01088 (2017)

    Liao, J., Yao, Y., Yuan, L., Hua, G., Kang, S.B.: Visual attribute transfer through deep image analogy. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.01088 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  16. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Liu, H., Li, C., Li, Y., Lee, Y.J.: Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 26296–26306 (2024)

    2024

  17. [21]

    Liu, H., Li, C., Li, Y., Li, B., Zhang, Y., Shen, S., Lee, Y.J.: Llava-next: Improved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge (2024)

    2024

  18. [22]

    Advances in neural information processing systems36(2024)

    Liu, H., Li, C., Wu, Q., Lee, Y.J.: Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems36(2024)

    2024

  19. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.04040 (2022)

    Liu, Y., Gal, R., Bermano, A.H., Chen, B., Cohen-Or, D.: Self-conditioned gen- erative adversarial networks for image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.04040 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073 (2021)

    Meng, C., He, Y., Song, Y., Song, J., Wu, J., Zhu, J.Y., Ermon, S.: Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  21. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Mokady, R., Hertz, A., Aberman, K., Pritch, Y., Cohen-Or, D.: Null-text inver- sion for editing real images using guided diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 6038– 6047 (2023)

    2023

  22. [26]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2024)

    Nguyen, T., Li, Y., Ojha, U., Lee, Y.J.: Visual instruction inversion: Image edit- ing via image prompting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2024)

    2024

  23. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741 (2021)

    Nichol, A., Dhariwal, P., Ramesh, A., Shyam, P., Mishkin, P., McGrew, B., Sutskever, I., Chen, M.: Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  24. [28]

    In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings

    Parmar, G., Kumar Singh, K., Zhang, R., Li, Y., Lu, J., Zhu, J.Y.: Zero-shot image-to-image translation. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings. pp. 1–11 (2023)

    2023

  25. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 10684–10695 (2022)

    2022

  26. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 (2020)

    Song, J., Meng, C., Ermon, S.: Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  27. [33]

    IEEE transactions on image processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004)

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004)

    2004

  28. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Wu, X., Sun, K., Zhu, F., Zhao, R., Li, H.: Human preference score: Better aligning text-to-image models with human preference. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 2096–2105 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12149 (2023)

    Yang, Z., Gui, D., Wang, W., Chen, H., Zhuang, B., Shen, C.: Object-aware inver- sion and reassembly for image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12149 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Zhang, L., Rao, A., Agrawala, M.: Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 3836–3847 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Zhang, R., Isola, P., Efros, A.A., Shechtman, E., Wang, O.: The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 586–595 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Zhang, Z., Han, L., Ghosh, A., Metaxas, D.N., Ren, J.: Sine: Single image editing with text-to-image diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 6027–6037 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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