Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Create Anything Anywhere: Layout-Controllable Personalized Diffusion Model for Multiple Subjects

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

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

Pith's one-line read One model keeps subject identities and obeys layout boxes.

desk verdict A genuinely new combination of video-derived dynamic features and dual layout control, but the central identity claim leans on an unverified training-data assumption and thin statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20909 v1 pith:EYB2UWOR submitted 2025-05-27 cs.CV

Wei Li , Hebei Li , Yansong Peng , Siying Wu , Yueyi Zhang , Xiaoyan Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords diffusionmodelspersonalizedgenerationlayoutcontrolmulti-subjecttuning-freeadaptationcross-attentionidentitypreservationtext-to-imagesynthesis
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 tries to establish that a single tuning-free diffusion model can preserve the visual identities of reference subjects, including several at once, while placing each subject inside a user-specified bounding box. That combination matters because previous personalization methods tend to favor one capability over the other: layout controllers struggle with identity, and identity-preserving methods ignore position. The paper proposes LCP-Diffusion, which combines dynamic video-derived features with static reference-image details and couples them to a layout-aware attention mechanism. It reports that this model outperforms existing methods on both identity and layout metrics, roughly doubling layout average precision over the best compared baseline. If the result holds, personalized image generation becomes a zero-shot operation guided by a simple spatial sketch.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a two-part conditioning stack added around a frozen pre-trained diffusion U-Net. The Dynamic-Static Complementary Visual Refining (D-SCVR) module combines a Dynamic Adaptive Encoder, which uses learnable queries and a perceiver resampler to distill subject variation from video frames and augmented images, with a Static Detail Refiner, which extracts mask-attended multi-level self-attention maps of the reference subject and projects them into static detail tokens. The Dual Layout Control mechanism then supplies grounding tokens through a Layout-Aware module that fuses Fourier-encoded box coordinates with static detail features and text entity embeddings, and a training-free Box-Constrained Cross-Attention Regulation that updates the latent at each denoising step to satisfy position and scale losses on the cross-attention maps. The argument is carried by these attention-level injections: they operate without unfreezing the backbone, so identity and layout can be reconciled by training only lightweight adapter parameters.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison between the current training setup and one where only verified same-subject, clean-mask frame pairs are used would settle the question: if identity metrics barely change, the random-pair assumption is not load-bearing, while a sharp drop would show that identity preservation depends on it. A complementary experiment would intentionally train on mismatched subject pairs and observe whether subject fidelity collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that identity preservation and layout control can be integrated without per-subject fine-tuning by treating the two as complementary feature-injection problems. On the identity side, the model learns dynamic features from video and augmented-image data, capturing pose, viewpoint, color, and texture variation, and merges them with mask-attended self-attention details from the reference image. On the layout side, a Layout-Aware module turns box coordinates and text entities into grounding tokens, and an inference-time box-constrained cross-attention regulation updates the latent so that subject tokens attend inside their boxes. In the paper's quantitative comparisons, the layout average precision reaches 42.2/64.5/48.7 on single-subject layout personalization versus 19.7/32.6/21.1 for the best combined baseline, while zero-shot subject fidelity (DINO 0.662) and text fidelity (CLIP-T 0.330) also lead the compared methods.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every pair of randomly sampled training video frames shows the same subject and that the automatic segmentation mask reliably isolates that subject, since the paper describes no identity verification, tracking, or mask-quality filtering between the two frames.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can generate images with several personal subjects at specified positions in one pass, with no per-subject fine-tuning and no extra storage.
  • A single trained adapter set can transfer to different pre-trained diffusion backbones, so layout-personalized generation can be layered onto existing custom models.
  • The inference-time box regulation can be switched off, letting the same model fall back to purely text-and-reference generation when no layout is given.
  • Compared with combined personalization-plus-layout baselines, the reported AP gain means layout fidelity need not come at the cost of identity preservation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that if the dynamic encoder is trained on unverified random frame pairs, the identity gains may not transfer to test videos with pose or view changes much larger than those in its training clips; an explicit same-subject verification step would make this testable.
  • The box-constrained cross-attention regulation is a training-free gradient update, so it could in principle be bolted onto other personalization methods that already produce grounding tokens, extending the paper's control mechanism beyond LCP-Diffusion itself.
  • The multi-subject experiments show noticeably lower subject fidelity than single-subject generation, which suggests that scaling to more subjects is the next open stress test rather than an already-solved regime.
  • Because augmentations alone improve identity metrics in the ablation, clean video frames may not be essential; static-image augmentation could offer a cheaper training-data route if video collection becomes a bottleneck.
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

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LCP-Diffusion, a tuning-free framework for personalized text-to-image generation with user-specified bounding boxes. It combines a Dynamic-Static Complementary Visual Refining (D-SCVR) module, which extracts dynamic features from video-frame pairs and augmented images via a perceiver resampler and static details from a frozen U-Net's self-attention maps, with a Dual Layout Control (DLC) mechanism that injects grounding tokens during training and applies box-constrained cross-attention regulation at inference. The authors evaluate on DreamBench and MultiBench using CLIP-I, DINO, CLIP-T, and detection-based AP, and claim consistent improvements over baselines constructed by combining existing personalization methods with layout-guidance techniques. The central claim is that a single zero-shot model can preserve multiple subject identities while accurately following user-specified bounding boxes.

Significance. If the results are reliable, the framework addresses a real gap: most personalized generation methods ignore layout, and most layout-controllable methods are not personalized. The architecture is plausible and reasonably well described: the DA-Encoder extends IP-Adapter's cross-attention conditioning with video-derived dynamic features, the static detail refiner exploits the U-Net's own feature space, and the inference-time box regulation is a natural extension of training-free attention guidance. The ablation in Table III shows monotone improvements from each proposed component, which is evidence that the design choices contribute. The main weakness is empirical: all metrics are single point estimates without error bars, the multi-subject setting has no quantitative baseline comparison, the training-data construction for the dynamic encoder lacks any identity or mask-quality filtering, and several hyperparameters and training details are unreported. These gaps prevent the current evidence from fully supporting the paper's strong claims, though the core approach is promising and likely fixable with additional analysis.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section III-B / IV-A] The DA-Encoder training samples two frames at random from each video clip and assumes they contain the same subject, with SAM used to segment the supplementary frame. No identity verification, tracking, or mask-quality filter is described. If a substantial fraction of frame pairs contain different subjects or imperfect masks, the perceiver resampler can encode unrelated appearances as dynamic features, and the identity gains in Table III (CLIP-I 0.737 to 0.761 with augmentation) could reflect category- or scene-level cues rather than pose/view generalization. Please report the percentage of frame pairs with consistent identity (e.g., by DINO feature similarity), explain how masks are selected when SAM returns multiple masks, and ideally add an ablation that filters or verifies frame pairs.
  2. [Tables I and II] All quantitative results are single point estimates without error bars, number of seeds, or significance tests. The paper states that the method 'significantly outperforms' the baselines, but for CLIP-I in Table II the method is below IP-Adapter (0.789 vs. 0.810) and SSR-Encoder (0.789 vs. 0.821), while it is above on DINO and CLIP-T. Without variance estimates it is impossible to assess whether these differences are meaningful. Please report results over at least three seeds with standard errors or confidence intervals, and provide significance tests or per-prompt breakdowns for the identity metrics.
  3. [Table I / Section IV-C] The multi-subject row in Table I contains only LCP-Diffusion, with no quantitative comparison against any baseline in the multi-subject setting. Since multi-subject layout control is a central contribution, the current evidence is incomplete. The concurrent method MS-Diffusion is mentioned in Section II but never compared. Please add multi-subject baseline comparisons (including MS-Diffusion and combinations such as IP-Adapter or SSR-Encoder with layout guidance) on the same AP/CLIP-I/DINO/CLIP-T metrics.
  4. [Section IV-B / Table II] The fine-tuned variant LCP-Diffusion* in Table II is not defined. The paper describes LCP-Diffusion as tuning-free, yet the experimental setup does not state which parameters are fine-tuned on DreamBench, with what learning rate, how many steps, or on which subset. Without this protocol, the comparison against DreamBooth and Custom Diffusion is not reproducible. The same applies to the 'fine-tuned on DreamBench' markers for BLIP-Diffusion and λ-ECLIPSE, whose fine-tuning details are also omitted.
  5. [Section III-C / Eq. (6)] The scale constraint loss in Eq. (6) is not fully specified. N_x is called the 'normalized width' of the bounding box, but it is used as the upper limit of a summation over j, which suggests it should be an integer number of bins. The projection of attention maps, bounding-box masks, and corner masks onto the x- and y-axes also lacks definitions (are these marginal sums, and how are they normalized?). Please clarify the notation and define every quantity in Eqs. (5)–(7), otherwise the inference-time regulation cannot be reproduced.
  6. [Section IV-A / Section III-E] The training data description mentions 86k video clips and an image subset from COCO Stuff and OpenImage-V6, but does not state how bounding boxes are obtained for the Layout-Aware module during training. Since Eq. (4) requires b for every training example, it is essential to specify whether boxes come from an external detector, from SAM masks, or from manual annotation, and how multi-subject boxes are handled. This is load-bearing for the grounding-attention training.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-E] There are typos: 'perciever' should be 'perceiver' in Section III-E, and 'enbale' should be 'enable' in Section II.
  2. [Table II] The citations for BLIP-Diffusion* and λ-ECLIPSE* in Table II point to [4] (Textual Inversion); these should be [8] and [13], respectively.
  3. [Section IV-C] The claim that CLIP-I 'tends to favor broader image-text alignment like overall background rather than precise detail matching' is confusing because CLIP-I is an image-to-image similarity, not a text-alignment metric. Please clarify how background alignment inflates CLIP-I and justify this interpretation with examples or a reference.
  4. [Section III-C / III-D] Several hyperparameters are not reported: η and the schedule of α_t in Eq. (8), α in Eq. (9), β in Eq. (10), and λ in Eq. (11). Please include these values in the implementation details or as a supplementary table.
  5. [Section IV-D] The user study is said to be in 'Section G of the supplementary material,' but no supplementary material is available with the submission. Please include the user-study protocol and results, or summarize them in the main text.
  6. [Eq. (9)] The mask M_s is used as an argument to CrossAttn but is not defined: it is unclear whether this is an attention mask over keys/values, a spatial mask over query positions, or a mask on the attended values. Please define it explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method's claims are validated against external benchmarks, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—identity preservation and layout controllability—are evaluated on external benchmarks (DreamBench, MultiBench) using standard metrics (CLIP-I, DINO, CLIP-T, and LW-DETR AP). The training objective is the standard diffusion MSE loss, and the inference-time box-constrained regulation optimizes attention maps, not the detector-based AP metric; the latter is computed on pixels, so the evaluation is not constructed from the training objective. The Static Detail Refiner shares weights with the frozen U-Net backbone, but this is an architectural design choice rather than a circular reduction: the extracted self-attention features are conditioned inputs, and the claimed benefit is tested via ablations against alternative extractors. No load-bearing self-citations appear; references are external prior work, and the dynamic attention initialization from IP-Adapter is a baseline initialization, not a self-citation chain. The weakest assumption—that randomly sampled video frame pairs contain the same subject—is a data-quality risk that could weaken the dynamic feature training, but it is not a circularity: it does not make any prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on unverified domain assumptions more than on free parameters: that frozen SD and CLIP feature spaces accept new attention branches, that cross-attention maps are spatially interpretable, that video frame pairs and SAM masks provide clean same-subject dynamic variation, and that U-Net self-attention maps are good static detail features. These are tested only through internal ablations, not external benchmarks. The free parameters are architectural and inference hyperparameters with no sensitivity analysis. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of learnable visual queries N = 16
    Set in the perceiver resampler; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Static attention injection strength alpha = not reported
    Equation 9 defines alpha as the injection strength, but no value or schedule is given.
  • Layout control scale factor eta = not reported
    Equation 8 scales the gradient update during inference; no value, range, or ablation is reported.
  • Learnable gating scalar gamma in grounding attention = initialized to 0
    Equation 10; the initialization is given, but the trained value is not reported.
  • Training data video/image sampling ratio = 70/30
    Section IV-B; chosen by hand and it directly controls how much dynamic versus static data the model sees.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pretrained Stable Diffusion and CLIP encoders can be frozen while new attention branches inject image and layout information without destroying text conditioning.
    Invoked throughout Section III-A and III-D; inherited from IP-Adapter and not re-validated for the three-branch adapter.
  • domain assumption Cross-attention maps over text tokens are spatially interpretable, so optimizing attention to fall inside a bounding box translates to objects appearing there.
    Equations 5-8 in Section III-C; this is the entire inference-time layout mechanism.
  • domain assumption Randomly sampled frame pairs from a video clip show the same subject with pose and view variation, and SAM masks cleanly isolate that subject.
    Sections III-B and IV-A; no identity verification, tracking, or mask filtering is described.
  • ad hoc to paper Self-attention maps of the frozen U-Net contain subject-detail information usable as static visual features.
    Static Detail Refiner in Section III-B; supported only by the internal ablation in Table III, not by an external theoretical or empirical anchor.
  • domain assumption Augmentations such as color jitter and geometric transforms simulate the dynamic variation needed to improve fidelity to texture-change prompts.
    Section III-B; the augmentation strategy is a design choice without comparison to other dynamic-data strategies beyond the one ablation.
  • domain assumption CLIP text and image feature spaces are aligned well enough that text features and image features can be combined in one cross-attention conditioning stream.
    Sections III-A and III-D; inherited from IP-Adapter and underlies dynamic attention and grounding token construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Create Anything Anywhere: Layout-Controllable Personalized Diffusion Model for Multiple Subjects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYB2UWOR

@misc{pith2026250520909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Create Anything Anywhere: Layout-Controllable Personalized Diffusion Model for Multiple Subjects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYB2UWOR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20909}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models have significantly advanced text-to-image generation, laying the foundation for the development of personalized generative frameworks. However, existing methods lack precise layout controllability and overlook the potential of dynamic features of reference subjects in improving fidelity. In this work, we propose Layout-Controllable Personalized Diffusion (LCP-Diffusion) model, a novel framework that integrates subject identity preservation with flexible layout guidance in a tuning-free approach. Our model employs a Dynamic-Static Complementary Visual Refining module to comprehensively capture the intricate details of reference subjects, and introduces a Dual Layout Control mechanism to enforce robust spatial control across both training and inference stages. Extensive experiments validate that LCP-Diffusion excels in both identity preservation and layout controllability. To the best of our knowledge, this is a pioneering work enabling users to "create anything anywhere".

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20909 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of LCP-Diffusion, a novel personalized layout-controllable framework. It supports single-subject (top-left), multi-subject (top-right), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Overview of the proposed framework; Right: The structures of Static Detail Refiner and Attention Block in UNet. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results show that LCP-Diffusion performs best both in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results show the fine-grained detail preservation ability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An illustration of the superior performance of the designed static [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, et al., “High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” inCVPR, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    TRIP: Temporal Residual Learning with Image Noise Prior for Image-to-Video Diffusion Models,

    Zhongwei Zhang, Fuchen Long, Yingwei Pan, Zhaofan Qiu, Ting Yao, Yang Cao, and Tao Mei, “TRIP: Temporal Residual Learning with Image Noise Prior for Image-to-Video Diffusion Models,” inCVPR, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    MotionPro: A Precise Motion Controller for Image-to-Video Generation,

    Zhongwei Zhang, Fuchen Long, et al., “MotionPro: A Precise Motion Controller for Image-to-Video Generation,” inCVPR, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion,

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Patashnik, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Patashnik, et al., “An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion,” inICLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to- image diffusion models for subject-driven generation,

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, et al., “Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to- image diffusion models for subject-driven generation,” inCVPR, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion,

    Nupur Kumari, Bingliang Zhang, et al., “Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion,” inCVPR, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Ssr-encoder: Encoding selective subject representation for subject-driven generation,

    Yuxuan Zhang, Yiren Song, Jiaming Liu, Rui Wang, Jinpeng Yu, Hao Tang, Huaxia Li, Xu Tang, et al., “Ssr-encoder: Encoding selective subject representation for subject-driven generation,” inCVPR, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Blip-diffusion: Pre-trained subject representation for controllable text-to-image generation and editing,

    Dongxu Li, Junnan Li, and Steven Hoi, “Blip-diffusion: Pre-trained subject representation for controllable text-to-image generation and editing,”NIPS, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Generative multimodal models are in- context learners,

    Quan Sun, Yufeng Cui, et al., “Generative multimodal models are in- context learners,” inCVPR, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Kosmos-g: Generating images in context with multimodal large language models,

    Xichen Pan, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Zhiliang Peng, Wenhu Chen, and Furu Wei, “Kosmos-g: Generating images in context with multimodal large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02992, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Instancediffusion: Instance-level control for image generation,

    Xudong Wang, Trevor Darrell, et al., “Instancediffusion: Instance-level control for image generation,” inCVPR, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Ip-adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to-image diffusion models,

    Hu Ye, Jun Zhang, Sibo Liu, Xiao Han, and Wei Yang, “Ip-adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to-image diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06721, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    λ- eclipse: Multi-concept personalized text-to-image diffusion models by leveraging clip latent space,

    Maitreya Patel, Sangmin Jung, Chitta Baral, and Yezhou Yang, “λ- eclipse: Multi-concept personalized text-to-image diffusion models by leveraging clip latent space,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05195, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inICML, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level image customization,

    Xi Chen, Lianghua Huang, et al., “Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level image customization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09481, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ms- diffusion: Multi-subject zero-shot image personalization with layout guidance,

    X Wang, Siming Fu, Qihan Huang, Wanggui He, and Hao Jiang, “Ms- diffusion: Multi-subject zero-shot image personalization with layout guidance,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07209, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    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,” inICCV, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Layoutdiffusion: Controllable diffusion model for layout-to-image generation,

    Guangcong Zheng, Xianpan Zhou, et al., “Layoutdiffusion: Controllable diffusion model for layout-to-image generation,” inCVPR, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation,

    Yuheng Li, Haotian Liu, Qingyang Wu, Fangzhou Mu, Jianwei Yang, Jianfeng Gao, Chunyuan Li, and Yong Jae Lee, “Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation,” inCVPR, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Training-free layout control with cross-attention guidance,

    Minghao Chen, Iro Laina, and Andrea Vedaldi, “Training-free layout control with cross-attention guidance,” inWACV, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Boxdiff: Text-to-image synthesis with training-free box-constrained diffusion,

    Jinheng Xie, Yuexiang Li, Yawen Huang, Haozhe Liu, Wentian Zhang, Yefeng Zheng, and Mike Zheng Shou, “Boxdiff: Text-to-image synthesis with training-free box-constrained diffusion,” inICCV, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    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,” inICCV, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning,

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, et al., “Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning,”NIPS, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Moma: Multimodal llm adapter for fast personalized image generation,

    Kunpeng Song, Yizhe Zhu, et al., “Moma: Multimodal llm adapter for fast personalized image generation,” inECCV, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Coco-stuff: Thing and stuff classes in context,

    Holger Caesar, Jasper Uijlings, and Vittorio Ferrari, “Coco-stuff: Thing and stuff classes in context,” inCVPR, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    The open images dataset v4: Unified image classification, object detection, and visual relationship detection at scale,

    Alina Kuznetsova, Hassan Rom, et al., “The open images dataset v4: Unified image classification, object detection, and visual relationship detection at scale,”IJCV, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Lw-detr: A transformer replacement to yolo for real-time detection,

    Qiang Chen, Xiangbo Su, et al., “Lw-detr: A transformer replacement to yolo for real-time detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03459, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, et al., “Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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