Through Van Gogh's Eyes: Global Style Transfer with Diffusion Model

Ghazanfar Ali; Jae-In Hwang; Jeongha Lee; Suhyun Kim; Yujin Kim

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Through Van Gogh's Eyes: Global Style Transfer with Diffusion Model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A residual offset in a diffusion model's h-space, trained on an artist's corpus under the fixed prompt 'A painting', transfers that artist's global style to arbitrary content images.

desk verdict A new many-to-one artist style transfer formulation with a clean h-space mechanism, but the quantitative evidence only supports diversity gains; fidelity and content-preservation claims need rebalancing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11546 v2 pith:C3JGEHA5 submitted 2026-08-12 cs.CV

Jeongha Lee , Yujin Kim , Ghazanfar Ali , Suhyun Kim , Jae-In Hwang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords globalstyletransferdiffusionmodelsh-spaceextractionfunctioncontentalignmentguidanceartist-levelstylizationtext-independentpersonalization

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

This paper proposes Global Style Transfer (GST), a many-to-one way to restyle a photograph: instead of using one reference artwork or an artist-name text prompt, it learns an artist-level style from hundreds of that artist's paintings and applies the shared style to a single content image. The central device is Global Style Guidance (GSG), a small network that predicts a residual offset added to the intermediate h-space features of a latent diffusion model; the offset is trained purely by reconstructing noise added to the artist's paintings, with every painting paired with the same generic prompt 'A painting'. Because the training signal comes from visual statistics rather than language, the paper claims the result avoids text-induced bias and the tendency of text-to-image models to reproduce a few iconic compositions. A second, training-free mechanism, Content Alignment Guidance (CAG), uses a perceptual CLIP loss alongside DDIM inversion to keep the content image's structure recognizable while allowing style-driven deformation. If correct, the framework would let one frozen generative model render any photograph in the coherent visual identity of any artist, with controllable fidelity and diversity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the global style offset $\Delta h_t$ in h-space: the feature activations at the U-Net bottleneck of a latent diffusion model, a semantic space that remains stable across timesteps and noise levels. GST trains a lightweight MLP, the Style Extraction Function, to output this residual from the current bottleneck features under a fixed prompt, so text conditioning contributes no variance; zero-initialization starts learning from a neutral state. The offset steers the reverse diffusion process by modifying the predicted clean-image part while leaving the denoising direction intact. The second mechanism, Content Alignment Guidance, inverts the content photo into a noisy latent and applies a CLIP perceptual gradient at each timestep, keeping semantic structure while permitting geometric deformation.

What would settle it

Use the paper's own failure case: an artist whose corpus consists mostly of mountains. Apply the trained offset to a photo of a person or vehicle. If the output consistently replaces the subject with mountain-like forms instead of preserving the subject under the artist's palette and brushwork, the learned offset encodes the corpus's subject distribution rather than a transferable global style.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a residual feature offset $\Delta h_t = f_t(h_t;\theta)$ in the U-Net bottleneck of a latent diffusion model can represent the global style of an artist rather than any single artwork or prompt phrase. The Style Extraction Function $f_t$ is trained on the artist's artworks with the noise-reconstruction loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{SEF}} = \mathbb{E}_{z,\epsilon,t}[\|\epsilon_\theta(z_t,t,\tau_\phi(y)|\Delta h_t)-\epsilon_t\|_2^2]$, always under the fixed prompt $y=$ 'A painting'. This makes the learned offset encode style from visual statistics alone. During sampling the offset steers the denoising trajectory; separately, Content Alignment Guidance computes $\ell(z_t)=\|E^l_{\mathrm{CLIP}}(\tilde{x}_0)-E^l_{\mathrm{CLIP}}(x_t)\|_2$ from a Tweedie-approximated clean image and applies $\tilde{z}_t = z_t - s\nabla_{z_t}\ell(z_t)$ to preserve content structure. The experiments report that GST achieves competitive FID and ArtFID, the highest stylistic diversity (CLIP-Div), and the best memorization avoidance (1-Precision) among the compared personalization methods, with diversity close to that of the real artwork corpus.

Load-bearing premise

Training an offset on an artist's paintings yields a style signal that transfers to photographs the artist never painted, rather than a content signal that overfits the subjects most common in the corpus.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same content photo can be rendered in the global styles of many artists with no artist-name prompt and with one frozen base model.
Replacing the training prompt ('A painting', 'An artwork', 'An image', '.') leaves the stylized output nearly unchanged, showing the learned style is text-independent.
Training on the full artwork corpus gives higher output diversity and lower memorization than prompt-embedding and fine-tuning personalization baselines, tracking the diversity of the real artwork collections.
Removing Content Alignment Guidance degrades content fidelity (higher FID and ArtFID), so content preservation is a genuine contribution of CAG rather than an incidental property.
The framework carries over to different diffusion backbones with different h-space dimensionalities by retraining the offset function for each backbone.

Reading between the lines

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

Not tested in the paper: because each artist's offset lives in the same h-space, one could interpolate or add two offsets to blend global styles (for instance, one painter's brushwork with another's palette) without retraining.
A direct measure of style-content disentanglement would be to train GSG on artists whose corpora vary in subject diversity and measure how well the offset transfers to content classes absent from the corpus; the paper's mountain-dominated failure case suggests transfer quality tracks subject diversity.
Since CAG relies on one high-level CLIP layer, swapping in a semantic encoder with finer spatial fidelity could sharpen structure preservation under strong style modulation, offering a testable variant of the mechanism.
The learned offset functions could double as compact artist descriptors, pointing toward style retrieval or quantitative comparisons of artists by the geometry of their offsets in h-space.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — this one is worth reading but not at face value. The new thing is the problem formulation: instead of one style image or a text prompt, they learn a residual h-space offset from hundreds of artworks under a fixed prompt, then apply it to a content image. That many-to-one framing is genuinely absent from the prior work they cite, and it gives them a text-independent way to capture an artist's overall style. The building blocks (Asyrp, ControlNet zero-init, standard LDM loss) are disclosed clearly; the derivation of the guidance equations is fine.

What is good: the diversity metrics are the strongest part. CLIP-Div for their outputs tracks the real artwork corpus, and 1-Precision is high, so they are actually producing varied, non-memorized results. The CAG mechanism is a sensible training-free way to hold content structure, and the qualitative ablation shows it matters. They also test across three SD backbones, which is more than most papers do.

Now the soft spots. First, Table 2 does not support the abstract's 'superior stylistic fidelity, content preservation' claim. On ArtFID and CFSD, Textual Inversion and Custom Diffusion beat them on most artists. The only clear wins are CLIP-Div and 1-Precision. Second, the diffusion style-transfer baselines they mention (StyleInjection, StyTR2, CAST, etc.) appear only qualitatively; no numbers. That leaves the quantitative story incomplete. Third, there is a circularity issue: the style offset is trained on an artist's WikiArt corpus and the same corpus is used as reference for FID, ArtFID, and diversity metrics. Some inflation of the style-fidelity numbers is likely. Fourth, the stress-test concern about content leakage is real and the paper's own Appendix C proves it: for Roerich, whose corpus is mountain-dominated, the model turns a tree field into mountains. That is exactly what you would expect if f_t is learning content statistics, not pure style. The limitation section admits dependence on the training content, but the abstract and intro still claim arbitrary content transfer.

Net: a solid mechanism and a genuinely new framing, but the claims are too strong. The paper deserves a serious referee; a careful revision could make it a solid venue paper. The authors should either narrow the claims or add proper held-out evaluation and the missing quantitative baseline table.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Global Style Transfer (GST), a many-to-one artistic image synthesis paradigm that aggregates multiple artworks of an artist to learn a global style representation. The method has two components: Global Style Guidance (GSG), which trains a lightweight Style Extraction Function f_t to produce a residual offset Δh_t in the h-space of a latent diffusion model under the fixed prompt 'A painting', and Content Alignment Guidance (CAG), a training-free CLIP-based guidance that preserves content structure during sampling. Experiments on WikiArt report FID, ArtFID, CFSD, CLIP-Div, and 1-Precision, comparing against Textual Inversion, Custom Diffusion, LoRA fine-tuning, and qualitative comparisons with style-transfer baselines. The paper claims superior stylistic fidelity, content preservation, and diversity, and includes ablations on guidance scales, training epochs, and backbones.

Significance. If the claims held, the paper would make a useful contribution: a text-independent, data-driven way to represent an artist's global style, potentially mitigating mode collapse in name-conditioned T2I generation. The h-space offset training and the training-free CAG mechanism are simple and reasonably motivated, and the paper includes extensive ablations, failure cases, and a limitation section. These are strengths. However, the significance is substantially tempered by the quantitative results, which on the paper's own reported metrics show the proposed method is worse than Textual Inversion on ArtFID and CFSD for all three tested artists, and by the clearly demonstrated content-bias failure in the Roerich case. The evaluation also conflates the training distribution with the evaluation reference for style-fidelity metrics. The core idea is defensible as a direction, but the evidence as presented does not support the headline claims of superiority.

major comments (4)

[§4.1, Table 2] The quantitative results contradict the abstract's claim of 'superior stylistic fidelity, content preservation' and the text's characterization of 'consistently strong performance'. For Van Gogh, the proposed method has ArtFID 19.25 versus Textual Inversion's 13.68 and CFSD 0.2896 versus 0.1674; the same pattern holds for Chagall and Renoir. Since ArtFID and CFSD are the paper's own metrics for style fidelity and content preservation, the method is not superior on these axes. The claim that GST is 'competitive' with TI is not supported by the numbers. Please either present a defensible interpretation of these results, revise the claims, or add evidence that the differences are not significant (e.g., confidence intervals over seeds).
[Appendix C, Fig. 16] The failure case with Nicholas Roerich shows that when the artist's corpus is dominated by one content type (mountains), the learned offset Δh_t converts unrelated content (trees) into mountain-like forms. This is direct evidence that f_t encodes content statistics of the training corpus rather than a pure global style operator. The limitation statement concedes that effectiveness depends on whether the artist's dataset includes the target content type, which undermines the central claim that GSG transfers global style to arbitrary content images. The training objective in Eq. (7) does not include any content-style disentanglement, and the fixed prompt only removes text variance, not visual content variance. Please address how the method can be claimed to learn 'artist-level style semantics purely from visual statistics' in light of this failure, or substantially qualify the generalization claim.
[§4.1 and Appendix A (Evaluation Metrics)] The style-fidelity metrics FID, ArtFID, CLIP-Div, and 1-Precision are all computed against the same WikiArt artist corpus that is used to train GSG (and to train the personalization baselines). This creates a circular evaluation: methods trained to reproduce the artist's distribution are expected to score well on these measures, and the metrics cannot distinguish between learning the artist's style and memorizing the training set. CFSD, which uses separate content images, is more independent, and on CFSD the proposed method is worse than the baselines. Please provide an evaluation setting that avoids this circularity, for example by training on a subset of an artist's works and computing style metrics on a held-out subset, or by using a reference corpus that was not part of any method's training.
[§2.2, §4.1] The paper repeatedly claims to outperform 'style transfer and diffusion-based artistic synthesis methods', but Table 2 quantitatively compares only with style personalization methods (Textual Inversion, Custom Diffusion, LoRA fine-tuning). The diffusion-based style-transfer baselines discussed in Related Works (StyleInjection, CSGO, InST, Diff-NST) appear only in the qualitative figure Fig. 5; no quantitative comparison with them is provided. This makes the broad superiority claim unsupported. Please add quantitative results for at least the main diffusion style-transfer baselines, or restrict the claim to the methods actually compared.

minor comments (5)

[§4.2, Fig. 8] The prompt-sensitivity analysis claims that generated images are 'nearly identical across prompts', but this is based on visual inspection only. Please quantify prompt sensitivity, e.g., by reporting the average pairwise distance between outputs under different prompts.
[§3.4, Eq. (8)-(10)] The symbol ℓ is used both for the perceptual loss and for the CLIP layer index l; this is confusing. Please use distinct notation, e.g., L for the loss and l for the layer.
[§4, Table 2, CLIP-Div] The CLIP-Div values are reported as 'Ours/Real'. For Van Gogh, Ours is 0.297 and Real is 0.335; this is an 11% gap, yet the text says the values are 'highly consistent'. Please define a quantitative criterion for consistency and report it, or soften the wording.
[Appendix A, Hyper Parameter Settings] The text says 'The impact of training epochs is presented in Fig. 7 of the main paper', but Figure 11 is the epoch ablation; Figure 7 in the printed version is a qualitative comparison with T2I models. Please correct the cross-reference.
[Table 3] The ablation of CAG reports results for one artist only (Van Gogh) without error bars or multiple seeds. Since the differences are modest, please include variance estimates or additional artists to support the claim that CAG is crucial.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Global-style fidelity is evaluated against the same WikiArt corpus used to fit the style offset, and the admitted Roerich failure shows the offset encodes corpus content; content transfer retains independent support.

fitted input called prediction [Appendix A (Evaluation Metrics) with Eq. (7)]
"we train the Style Extraction Function (SEF) f_t on the WikiArt dataset [28], using between 500 and 1800 artworks per artist ... we measure Frechet Inception Distance (FID) [10] between the generated images and the full set of artworks for each artist."

The SEF is fitted via Eq. (7) to minimize noise reconstruction on the artist's WikiArt artworks, and the headline style-fidelity metrics (FID, ArtFID, 1-Precision) are then computed against that same artwork set. No held-out artwork split is reported, so 'superior stylistic fidelity' quantifies proximity to the training distribution rather than an independent prediction of artist-level style. The fitted residual offset is thus evaluated against the very distribution it was trained to reproduce.
self definitional [Appendix C (Limitation) with Eq. (7)]
"When an artist's works mostly depict limited subjects, such as natural scenes, the model struggles to generalize to unseen content like humans or vehicles ... the effectiveness of style transfer depends on whether the artist's dataset includes the target content type."

Eq. (7) provides no mechanism to separate content from style: Delta h_t is a function of h_t, which carries both content and style information, and 'global style' is operationally defined as the visual statistics of the artist's corpus. The admitted Roerich failure, where tree content is reconstructed as mountain-like shapes, shows the learned offset encodes corpus content. The claim that GSG learns 'purely visual style semantics' therefore holds only by defining style as the corpus distribution; generalization to arbitrary content is assumed rather than derived.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not wholly self-contained. The core training objective (Eq. 7) fits the residual offset to the artist's artworks, and the paper's central style-fidelity claims are evaluated on that same WikiArt corpus, so the headline 'superior stylistic fidelity' is partially forced by the training distribution. The Roerich limitation, admitted in Appendix C, shows that the offset can encode content statistics when the artwork corpus is content-biased, undermining the claim that GSG captures only style. However, the transfer pipeline itself is run on separate content images (VanGogh2Photo), and the content-preservation metric CFSD is applied to those held-out content inputs, giving independent grounding to the content-alignment component. The paper also compares against external baselines and does not rely on self-citation for its main innovation, only on the standard Asyrp h-space construction from different authors. Therefore the circularity is partial: one or more predictions reduce by construction to the training distribution, but the central content-transfer claim is independently tested. Score 4 reflects this partial circularity without declaring the whole method circular.

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

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions about the h-space of diffusion models, the fixed-prompt training scheme, and the generalization of a style offset trained on an artist's corpus. Three manual hyperparameters (w, s, CLIP layer) are tuned on the evaluation setup, and the evaluation metrics themselves reference the same artist corpus used for training, which limits the independence of the validation.

free parameters (3)

Global style offset scaling factor w = 1.0, 1.25, 1.5 (selected per artist)
Controls the strength of the h-space style offset in Eq. (5); chosen by qualitative sweeps in Fig. 14, not derived from data.
CAG guidance scale s = 50.0
Controls content-alignment strength in Eq. (10); fixed by the authors based on the trade-off analysis in Fig. 14.
CLIP layer index l for CAG = 11
The paper shows in Fig. 10 that lower layers (1-9) produce artifacts and that layer 11 preserves structure; this layer choice is an ablation-selected parameter.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The h-space (U-Net bottleneck) of a pretrained latent diffusion model is a stable, transferable semantic space that encodes artist-level style (Fig. 4).
Invoked in Sec. 3.3 to justify applying a learned residual offset to the bottleneck; the paper provides t-SNE evidence but no formal guarantee.
ad hoc to paper Pairing all artworks with the fixed prompt 'A painting' makes text conditioning variance negligible, so f_t learns style purely from visual statistics.
Stated in Sec. 3.3; the prompt sensitivity test in Fig. 8 is qualitative and does not fully control for text-conditioned features.
domain assumption DDIM inversion of a content image yields a latent whose Tweedie estimate captures the content structure, so CAG can align generated images to it.
Assumed in Sec. 3.4; the quality of inversion for arbitrary photos is not quantified.
domain assumption Noise reconstruction loss on the artist's corpus produces a style offset that generalizes to out-of-domain content (photos).
Central generalization premise; the Roerich failure case (Appendix C) shows it can fail when the artist corpus is content-biased.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Through Van Gogh's Eyes: Global Style Transfer with Diffusion Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C3JGEHA5

@misc{pith2026260811546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Through Van Gogh's Eyes: Global Style Transfer with Diffusion Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C3JGEHA5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11546}
}

read the original abstract

Artistic image synthesis aims to recreate the expressive visual identity of a target artist, yet existing methods often fail to capture an artist's global style. Conventional style transfer methods transfer the style of one or a few reference artworks to a content image in a One-to-One manner, making them effective for artwork-level stylization but limited in representing the broader stylistic distribution of an artist. Text-to-image diffusion models conditioned on artist names, such as '~ in Van Gogh style', offer greater flexibility, but they often suffer from text-induced bias and reproduce patterns from only a few iconic works. To address these limitations, we introduce Global Style Transfer (GST), an artistic image synthesis paradigm, in a Many-to-One manner, that aggregates multiple artworks from a target artist and transfers their shared global style to a single content image. For GST, we propose Global Style Guidance (GSG), which learns a residual global style offset in the intermediate feature space, or h-space, of a diffusion model under a fixed prompt. By learning artist-level style semantics purely from visual statistics, GSG mitigates text-dependent artistic bias. We further propose Content Alignment Guidance (CAG), a training-free perceptual guidance mechanism that preserves the semantic structure of the content image while allowing artist-specific geometric deformation. Experiments on WikiArt demonstrate that GST achieves superior stylistic fidelity, content preservation, and output diversity compared to existing style transfer and diffusion-based artistic synthesis methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11546 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Artist-level Global Style Transfer results. Given a content image Ic(first column), our framework synthesizes an artistic image x0 (second column) that reflects the global style of the target artist. The Artist Style Book (remaining columns) displays the top-6 real artworks from the artist’s corpus with the highest semantic similarity to x0, measured by CLIP distance. This demonstrates that our generated results ar… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Comparison between conventional style transfer and the proposed Global Style Transfer. (Top) Traditional style transfer applies the style of a single reference artwork to a content image, leading to instance-level overfitting. (Bottom) In contrast, Global Style Transfer leverages various artworks from the same artist to learn unified stylistic features, including color palettes, texture patterns, and brushwork, enab… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overall framework of Global Style Transfer (GST). (Left) Global Style Guidance (GSG) trains a lightweight Style Extraction Function ft on multiple artworks under the fixed prompt ‘A painting’, learning a residual global style offset ∆ht that modulates the U-Net bottleneck representation ht in a text-independent manner. During reverse diffusion, ∆ht steers the denoising trajectory toward the artist’s global style d… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (13 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Time-step robustness of Global Style Guidance in h-space. (Top) Artistic images generated at diffusion timesteps t = {0, 10, 25, 50}, showing increasing noise levels as t grows. (Bottom) t-SNE visualizations of 500 ht feature vectors from artworks by Van Gogh (yellow)…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of Global Style Transfer (GST) with representative style transfer baselines. We compare GST with instance-level style transfer and style personalization methods, using artworks from the same artist as style exemplars: (a) Van Gogh and (b) Pierre-Auguste Reno…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Visual comparison of previous style personalization methods and vanilla Stable Diffusion. Qualitative results corresponding to Tab. 2 are shown, demonstrating the comparative performance of each method in terms of style alignment and visual coherence. [9], grouped se…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Visual comparison with T2I models (Nano Banana 2, ChatGPT 5.2) prompted with ‘Van Gogh style’ for a given content image Ic. The rightmost columns display the top three Van Gogh artworks with the lowest CLIP distance to our generated result. successfully reproduces the …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The sensitivity of prompt for training the Style Extraction Function ft. Since the Style Extraction Function (SEF) is trained using a large collection of artworks, we use a fixed prompt, ‘A painting’, during training to minimize textual influence and encourage the m…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Qualitative ablation on CAG. Without CAG, the images exhibit content degradation despite strong stylization. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Effect of training epochs on Style Extraction Function: higher epochs yield stronger artist-specific characteristics. Effect of Training Epochs on Style Extraction Function. We investigate the effect of training epochs on the Style Extraction Function (SEF) ft to eval…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Global Style Transfer results across multiple artists for the same content image. Given the same content images Ic, our framework transfers the images into the global styles of eight different painters. All images are generated using a textindependent prompt (“A pain…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Comparison of stylistic bias between vanilla Stable Diffusion (SD) and our Global Style Transfer. Given the same content images, vanilla SD conditioned on the prompt ‘A painting of van gogh style’ tends to bias toward a few iconic patterns (e.g., ‘Starry Night’-like s…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Effect of guidance strength on the style–content balance, illustrating how Global Style and Content Alignment Guidance jointly control stylistic expressiveness and content preservation. emerges in the original diffusion model. To conduct this analysis, we generate ar…

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Backbone generalization. Global Style Transfer applied on different T2I diffusion backbones (SD-1.4, SD-2.1, SDXL) for the same content image, showing that our framework transfers consistently across backbones. Effect of Guidance Scales on Style-Content Trade Off. We…

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Thus, the effectiveness of style transfer depends on whether the artist’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Failure case of Global Style Transfer when the artist’s dataset contains highly biased content. As shown in Nicholas Roerich, whose works predominantly depict mountains, our framework fails to generalize to non-mountain content. When a treefield landscape is provided…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

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

Alanov, A., Titov, V., Nakhodnov, M., Vetrov, D.: Styledomain: Efficient and lightweight parameterizations of stylegan for one-shot and few-shot domain adap- tation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 2184–2194 (2023)

work page 2023
[2]

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

Chung, J., Hyun, S., Heo, J.P.: Style injection in diffusion: A training-free approach for adapting large-scale diffusion models for style transfer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8795–8805 (2024)

2024
[3]

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

Deng, Y., Tang, F., Dong, W., Ma, C., Pan, X., Wang, L., Xu, C.: Stytr2: Image style transfer with transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11326–11336 (2022)

2022
[4]

Journal of the American Statistical Association106(496), 1602–1614 (2011)

Efron, B.: Tweedie’s formula and selection bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association106(496), 1602–1614 (2011)

2011
[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)

arXiv 2022
[6]

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

Gatys, L.A., Ecker, A.S., Bethge, M.: Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2414–2423 (2016)

2016
[7]

google/overview/image-generation/(2026), accessed: 2026-01-22

Google: Gemini image generation: Create images with gemini.https://gemini. google/overview/image-generation/(2026), accessed: 2026-01-22

work page 2026
[8]

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

Gu, S., Chen, C., Liao, J., Yuan, L.: Arbitrary style transfer with deep feature reshuffle. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8222–8231 (2018)

2018

Show all 37 references

[9]

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

Hertz, A., Voynov, A., Fruchter, S., Cohen-Or, D.: Style aligned image generation via shared attention. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 4775–4785 (2024)

2024
[10]

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
[11]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

Huang, X., Belongie, S.: Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. pp. 1501–1510 (2017)

2017
[12]

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

Kumari, N., Zhang, B., Zhang, R., Shechtman, E., Zhu, J.Y.: Multi-concept cus- tomization of text-to-image diffusion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1931–1941 (2023)

2023
[13]

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
[14]

Advances in neural information processing systems32(2019)

Kynkäänniemi, T., Karras, T., Laine, S., Lehtinen, J., Aila, T.: Improved precision and recall metric for assessing generative models. Advances in neural information processing systems32(2019)

2019
[15]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.01036 (2017)

Li, Y., Wang, N., Liu, J., Hou, X.: Demystifying neural style transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.01036 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[16]

Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

Li,Y.,Fang,C.,Yang,J.,Wang,Z.,Lu,X.,Yang,M.H.:Universalstyletransfervia feature transforms. Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

2017
[17]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

Liu, S., Lin, T., He, D., Li, F., Wang, M., Li, X., Sun, Z., Li, Q., Ding, E.: Adaattn: Revisit attention mechanism in arbitrary neural style transfer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 6649–6658 (2021) Global Style Transfer 17

2021
[18]

In: International conference on machine learning

Naeem, M.F., Oh, S.J., Uh, Y., Choi, Y., Yoo, J.: Reliable fidelity and diversity metrics for generative models. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 7176–7185. PMLR (2020)

2020
[19]

find inspiration

OpenAI: Chatgpt: Get answers. find inspiration. be productive.https://openai. com/ko-KR/index/chatgpt/(2026), accessed: 2026-01-22

2026
[20]

In: proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition

Park, D.Y., Lee, K.H.: Arbitrary style transfer with style-attentional networks. In: proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition. pp. 5880–5888 (2019)

2019
[21]

In: International conference on machine learning

Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 8748–8763. PmLR (2021)

2021
[22]

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
[23]

Ruiz, N., Li, Y., Jampani, V., Pritch, Y., Rubinstein, M., Aberman, K.: Dream- booth:Finetuningtext-to-imagediffusionmodelsforsubject-drivengeneration.In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition. pp. 22500–22510 (2023)

2023
[24]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Ruta, D., Tarrés, G.C., Gilbert, A., Shechtman, E., Kolkin, N., Collomosse, J.: Diff-nst: Diffusion interleaving for deformable neural style transfer. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 50–66. Springer (2024)

2024
[25]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00983 (2023)

Sohn, K., Ruiz, N., Lee, K., Chin, D.C., Blok, I., Chang, H., Barber, J., Jiang, L., Entis, G., Li, Y., et al.: Styledrop: Text-to-image generation in any style. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00983 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[26]

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]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 (2020)

Song, Y., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D.P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., Poole, B.: Score- based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[28]

IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 28(1), 394–409 (2018)

Tan, W.R., Chan, C.S., Aguirre, H.E., Tanaka, K.: Improved artgan for conditional synthesis of natural image and artwork. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 28(1), 394–409 (2018)

2018
[29]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.08022 (2016)

Ulyanov, D., Vedaldi, A., Lempitsky, V.: Instance normalization: The missing in- gredient for fast stylization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.08022 (2016)

2016 arXiv
[30]

In: DAGM German Conference on Pattern Recognition

Wright, M., Ommer, B.: Artfid: Quantitative evaluation of neural style transfer. In: DAGM German Conference on Pattern Recognition. pp. 560–576. Springer (2022)

2022
[31]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16766 (2024)

Xing, P., Wang, H., Sun, Y., Wang, Q., Bai, X., Ai, H., Huang, R., Li, Z.: Csgo: Content-style composition in text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16766 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[32]

In: Proceed- ings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

Xu, R., Xi, W., Wang, X., Mao, Y., Cheng, Z.: Stylessp: Sampling startpoint en- hancement for training-free diffusion-based method for style transfer. In: Proceed- ings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 18260–18269 (2025)

2025
[33]

In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

Zhang, C., Xu, X., Wang, L., Dai, Z., Yang, J.: S2wat: Image style transfer via hierarchical vision transformer using strips window attention. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. vol. 38, pp. 7024–7032 (2024)

2024
[34]

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) 18 J. Lee et al

2023
[35]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Zhang, Y., Huang, N., Tang, F., Huang, H., Ma, C., Dong, W., Xu, C.: Inversion- based style transfer with diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 10146–10156 (2023)

2023
[36]

In: ACM SIG- GRAPH 2022 conference proceedings

Zhang, Y., Tang, F., Dong, W., Huang, H., Ma, C., Lee, T.Y., Xu, C.: Domain enhanced arbitrary image style transfer via contrastive learning. In: ACM SIG- GRAPH 2022 conference proceedings. pp. 1–8 (2022)

2022
[37]

A painting

Zhu, J.Y., Park, T., Isola, P., Efros, A.A.: Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE interna- tional conference on computer vision. pp. 2223–2232 (2017) Global Style Transfer 19 A Experiment Settings Model.We...

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

Alanov, A., Titov, V., Nakhodnov, M., Vetrov, D.: Styledomain: Efficient and lightweight parameterizations of stylegan for one-shot and few-shot domain adap- tation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 2184–2194 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [2]

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

Chung, J., Hyun, S., Heo, J.P.: Style injection in diffusion: A training-free approach for adapting large-scale diffusion models for style transfer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8795–8805 (2024)

2024

[3] [3]

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

Deng, Y., Tang, F., Dong, W., Ma, C., Pan, X., Wang, L., Xu, C.: Stytr2: Image style transfer with transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11326–11336 (2022)

2022

[4] [4]

Journal of the American Statistical Association106(496), 1602–1614 (2011)

Efron, B.: Tweedie’s formula and selection bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association106(496), 1602–1614 (2011)

2011

[5] [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)

arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

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

Gatys, L.A., Ecker, A.S., Bethge, M.: Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2414–2423 (2016)

2016

[7] [7]

google/overview/image-generation/(2026), accessed: 2026-01-22

Google: Gemini image generation: Create images with gemini.https://gemini. google/overview/image-generation/(2026), accessed: 2026-01-22

work page 2026

[8] [8]

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

Gu, S., Chen, C., Liao, J., Yuan, L.: Arbitrary style transfer with deep feature reshuffle. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8222–8231 (2018)

2018