Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Reversible Inversion for Training-Free Exemplar-guided Image Editing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that exemplar-guided image editing can be done without any training by replacing backward inversion with a two-stage forward denoising process — first conditioned on the source image, then on the reference — and that this

desk verdict A clean two-stage forward-edit trick that likely works in practice, but the theoretical justification for replacing the inverted noise with a fresh sample (Eq. 11) does not follow from Eq. 8, and the efficiency claim is partly overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.01382 v4 pith:F557S4YN submitted 2025-12-01 cs.CV

Yuke Li , Lianli Gao , Ji Zhang , Pengpeng Zeng , Lichuan Xiang , Hongkai Wen , Heng Tao Shen , Jingkuan Song This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords exemplar-guidedimageeditingtraining-freeinversionflowmatchingrectifiedmask-guideddenoisingtwo-stagediffusion
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

Standard inversion-based editing drifts because the backward process must guess the velocity field at unknown earlier states. This paper argues the drift is unnecessary: if the editing model is a good reconstructor, the forward reconstruction pass itself yields reliable velocities, and the inversion error equals the reconstruction error. On that basis it reformulates editing as a single forward pass split into two stages — denoise toward the source for a few steps, then switch to denoising toward the reference — and adds a mask that forces the second stage to leave background pixels on a deterministic path toward the source. The result is training-free exemplar-guided editing that runs in 14–18 function evaluations instead of the 36–122 used by prior inversion methods, with reported state-of-the-art fidelity and background preservation. The load-bearing premise: the equivalence between random noise and the recovered source noise holds only because the underlying model reconstructs the source almost perfectly.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-stage Euler integration of a flow-matching ODE, with the conditioning input swapped from the source image to the reference at a transition timestep tτ. The load-bearing identity is Eq. (8): the L2 error of the recovered noise equals the L2 error of the model's reconstruction of the source. Reusing the forward reconstruction velocities makes the inversion 'reversible' in the sense that no backward trajectory needs to be estimated; the mask term blends in a linear velocity (Xs − Xt)/(1−t) outside the target region so the background is pinned to the source.

What would settle it

Take the same two-stage procedure with a backbone whose reconstruction error is substantially larger than ~0.016 (e.g., a model that reproduces the source with visible artifacts). If editing quality and background preservation collapse as reconstruction error grows, the inversion-error equals reconstruction-error identity is confirmed as the mechanism; if they do not, the method's success is not explained by that identity. A second target: find any source image where the backbone's reconstruction is poor and show ReInversion produces a visibly wrong edit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ReInversion is a training-free procedure for exemplar-guided editing built on the identity ∥X̃0 − X0∥ = ∥Xs − X̂1∥: the error of the inversion equals the reconstruction error of the model. Because the pretrained flow-matching editor they use reconstructs source images with average per-pixel L2 error of about 0.016, the paper treats the recovered noise as indistinguishable from a fresh Gaussian and reformulates the whole edit as one forward Euler integration that is conditioned on the source for t < tτ and on the reference for t ≥ tτ. A mask-guided selective denoising term then forces the background region to follow a deterministic velocity that points at the source, keeping unedited areas in

Load-bearing premise

Every claim rests on the assumption that a fresh random noise, denoised for a few steps under source conditioning, lands at the same intermediate latent as the source image's own reconstruction — which holds only because the chosen backbone reconstructs the source almost perfectly (L2 ≈ 0.016) and is not demonstrated for out-of-distribution sources or weaker backbones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exemplar-guided editing can be done entirely without training: a two-stage conditioning switch on an off-the-shelf flow-matching editor is sufficient; no learned source–reference mapping is required.
  • Replacing the backward inversion with forward reconstruction velocities removes accumulated drift, so the edit starts from a reliable latent and preserves source structure.
  • Adding the mask term sharply improves background preservation (CLIP-BG from ~69 to ~83.5) while also slightly improving foreground alignment.
  • The reformulation halves the cost of reconstruction-based inversion (18 vs 36 NFEs, a 1.82× speedup) without a measurable drop in editing quality, and it transfers to different flow-based backbones and low step counts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the identity holds, inversion becomes unnecessary: the method is effectively 'conditional editing by trajectory stitching,' and the bottleneck shifts to the model's ability to edit from a partially denoised state under reference conditioning.
  • The deterministic stage-1 variant implies the source-conditioned stage can be replaced by linear interpolation toward the source; a testable extension is whether any flow-matching editor with high reconstruction fidelity can be turned into an EIE tool with this recipe, without retraining.
  • A sharper test: the method should degrade as reconstruction error grows. Measuring edit quality versus reconstruction L2 across several backbones and source images would either confirm the mechanism or expose that the two-stage switch works for other reasons.
  • The mask coefficient η is swept to 1.0 in the paper; an open question is whether η can be scheduled over timesteps (strong background pinning early, relaxed late) to allow softer edits while preserving the background.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ReInversion, a training-free exemplar-guided image editing method built on the Flux-Kontext flow-matching backbone. The method first defines Reconstruction-Based Inversion (Recon-Inv), which uses the velocity fields extracted from a forward reconstruction of the source image to invert the source with an error that is exactly equal to the reconstruction error (Eq. 8). It then reformulates Recon-Inv into a two-stage forward denoising process: a first stage conditioned on the source image, followed by a second stage conditioned on the reference image. A Mask-Guided Selective Denoising (MSD) module further constrains edits to foreground regions. The authors report state-of-the-art FID, CLIP-FG, CLIP-BG, and low NFE counts on a curated COCOEE subset, and provide ablations on the transition timestep and MSD coefficient.

Significance. If the reformulation in Eq. 11 were rigorously justified, this would be a valuable contribution: ReInversion achieves 14–18 NFEs with strong FID (4.90–5.01) and CLIP scores, substantially outperforming prior flow-inversion methods on the reported benchmark, and it is training-free. The identity in Eq. 8 is a clean, non-circular derivation linking inversion error to reconstruction error. The MSD strategy is simple and appears effective in the ablations. However, the central theoretical claim that the two-stage process 'can be safely reformulated' from Recon-Inv rests on an unproven distributional assumption about fresh Gaussian noise paths. The empirical evidence in Table 3 is a single aggregate metric without error bars or a distributional comparison of transition states. Thus the method may be practically useful, but the paper as written overstates the strength of its theoretical support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (10)–(11) and Supp. Listing J] The transition from Eq. (10) to Eq. (11) is not a logical consequence of Eq. (8). Eq. (8) bounds ‖X̃₀ − X₀‖ for the specific noise X₀ used in the forward reconstruction that produced X̂₁. However, the final algorithm (Supp. Listing J) initializes X = torch.randn_like(X_src), i.e., a fresh prior sample. The distance between that fresh sample and X̃₀ is not controlled by the reconstruction error; it is of order the prior scale. Additionally, Eq. (11) changes the velocity arguments from X̂_tᵢ (the reconstruction states) to X̃_tᵢ (the new trajectory states), which is a further approximation. The paper therefore assumes, without proof, that denoising any fresh Gaussian under X_s-conditioning for t∈[0,t_τ] lands at a transition state statistically equivalent to the one from Recon-Inv. This is an empirical property of the backbone, not a consequence of flow-matching theory. Please either provid
  2. [Table 3 (Validation of the reformulation)] The only quantitative support for the reformulation is a single CLIP-FG value (82.10 vs. 81.80) on one backbone and one benchmark, with no error bars or seed variance. This is insufficient to establish distributional equivalence, especially because the gap could be masked by metric insensitivity. Please report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds, and ideally compare distributions of the intermediate states (e.g., via MMD or FID of X_t_τ) between Recon-Inv and ReInversion. Without this, the statement that the reformulation 'introduces no observable degradation' is not well supported.
  3. [Sec. 5.1 and Table 1 (COCOEE† benchmark)] The headline results are reported on COCOEE†, a manually curated subset of 2,079 samples after filtering out low-quality references. While the supplementary material includes results on the original COCOEE (Table E), the main-text claim of state-of-the-art performance rests on the curated subset, whose filtering procedure may introduce selection bias that cannot be fully assessed without a detailed protocol. Please move the original-COCOEE results to the main table or at least state explicitly in the main text that both curated and original results are available, and explain how the filtering criterion is model-agnostic.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (9)] The summation upper limit in Eq. (9) appears to be a typo: it reads 'n−τ' but should likely be 'n−1' (or the notation should be defined consistently).
  2. [Sec. 4.2, after Eq. (11)] 'denoising from a gaussian noise' should read 'Gaussian noise' for capitalization consistency.
  3. [Fig. 3] The figure caption says 'Top: source images; bottom: reconstructions,' but the axes of the images are not labeled. Adding labels or a small legend would improve clarity.
  4. [Sec. 5.2, quantitative comparisons] No statistical significance tests or confidence intervals are reported for FID, QS, or CLIP metrics. For a stochastic generative method, reporting runs over multiple seeds or at least bootstrap confidence intervals is advisable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. 8 is a true algebraic identity, the method is validated against external baselines, and no load-bearing self-citation is present.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Eq. 8 is obtained by subtracting the reconstruction trajectory (Eq. 5) from the Recon-Inv definition (Eq. 7); the equality ||X̃0−X0||=||Xs−X̂1|| is an algebraic identity, not a fitted target or a definition of one quantity in terms of the other. The move from Eq. 10 to Eq. 11 substitutes a fresh Gaussian noise in place of the inverted noise; this is a substantive approximation whose validity depends on the backbone's near-perfect reconstruction and on distributional similarity of transition states. That is a correctness/robustness concern (and the paper's Supp. C admits reduced realism on complex transformations), but it is not a circular reduction: the edited result is not defined to equal its input, and Tab. 3 is only a consistency check with the paper's own Recon-Inv. The main quantitative claims are benchmarked externally against FireFlow, RF-Inversion, FTEdit, and RF-Solver on COCOEE and COCOEE† (Tab. 1 and Tab. E), so the central result does not reduce to the paper's own outputs. The only author-overlapping citation, [12] MagicVFX, appears in a related-work list and is not load-bearing. No self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling is used to force the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a strong pretrained backbone and two tuned hyperparameters; no new entities are introduced. The theoretical identity Eq. 8 is valid but shifts the burden to the empirical reconstruction property of Flux-Kontext.

free parameters (2)
  • tτ (transition timestep) = 0.2 (chosen via ablation in Fig. 5)
    Determines when source conditioning switches to reference conditioning; ablations show best in [0.1,0.3]. Tuned on the same COCOEE† benchmark used for the final headline numbers.
  • η (background deterministic velocity weight) = not stated precisely; recommended range [0.8,1.0] via Fig. 7
    Controls how strongly the outside-mask regions are pushed toward the source. The default value used for Table 1 is not reported in the main text.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flux-Kontext achieves near-perfect reconstruction (per-pixel L2=0.016 on [0,1]), so ∥Xs−X̂1∥≈0 in Eq. 8.
    Empirical claim from Fig. 3 used to justify replacing the inversion noise X̃0 with a fresh Gaussian X0 in Eq. 11; not proven for all inputs or latent spaces.
  • ad hoc to paper A denoising segment conditioned on Xs for t∈[0,tτ] preserves source structure, and a later segment conditioned on Xr transfers reference attributes.
    Central premise of the two-stage Eq. 13; no theoretical or empirical quantification of when the switch produces faithful edits vs artifacts across tasks.
  • ad hoc to paper The L2 reconstruction error measured on decoded images (Fig. 3) bounds the error of the flow states in Eq. 8.
    The derivation mixes image-space and latent/state-space distances without specifying the encoder/decoder mapping; small image-space errors could correspond to large flow-state deviations.
  • standard math Flow-matching ODE and Euler discretization (Eq. 1–2) accurately describe the pretrained model and the edits.
    Background assumption in Sec. 3.1; standard for this class of models.
  • domain assumption A binary mask M identifying editing regions is available at inference.
    MSD in Eq. 14 requires an accurate mask; the paper says it can be user-provided, automatic segmentation, or detection, but does not evaluate mask errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reversible Inversion for Training-Free Exemplar-guided Image Editing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F557S4YN

@misc{pith2026251201382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reversible Inversion for Training-Free Exemplar-guided Image Editing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F557S4YN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.01382}
}
read the original abstract

Exemplar-guided Image Editing (EIE) aims to modify a source image according to a visual reference. Existing approaches often require large-scale pre-training to learn relationships between the source and reference images, incurring high computational costs. As a training-free alternative, inversion techniques can be used to map the source image into a latent space for manipulation. However, our empirical study reveals that standard inversion is sub-optimal for EIE, leading to poor quality and inefficiency. To tackle this challenge, we introduce \textbf{Reversible Inversion ({ReInversion})} for effective and efficient EIE. Specifically, ReInversion operates as a two-stage denoising process, which is first conditioned on the source image and subsequently on the reference. Besides, we introduce a Mask-Guided Selective Denoising (MSD) strategy to constrain edits to target regions, preserving the structural consistency of the background. Both qualitative and quantitative comparisons demonstrate that our ReInversion method achieves state-of-the-art EIE performance with the lowest computational overhead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.01382 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Exemplar-guided image editing results of our proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of inversion-based editing methods and our ReInversion. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reconstruction results of Flux-Kontext [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons with SOTA inversion-based methods. Our ReInversion (the last column) demonstrates superior perfor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation study on the effect of the hyperparameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative analysis on Mask-Guided Selective Denois [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ablation study on the effect of η. Effect of η We further investigate the impact of the balanc￾ing coefficient η of Eq. 14, which controls the relative con￾tribution of the deterministic velocity field v ∗ . As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Albergo and Eric Vanden-Eijnden

    Michael S. Albergo and Eric Vanden-Eijnden. Building nor- malizing flows with stochastic interpolants. InEleventh In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 2

    2023

  2. [2]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A. Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 2

    2023

  3. [3]

    Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level im- age customization

    Xi Chen, Lianghua Huang, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Hengshuang Zhao. Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level im- age customization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6593–6602, 2024. 1, 2, 13

    2024

  4. [4]

    Lin, and Hengshuang Zhao

    Xi Chen, Zhifei Zhang, He Zhang, Yuqian Zhou, Soo Ye Kim, Qing Liu, Yijun Li, Jianming Zhang, Nanxuan Zhao, Yilin Wang, Hui Ding, Zhe L. Lin, and Hengshuang Zhao. Unireal: Universal image generation and editing via learning real-world dynamics. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12501–12511, 2025. 2

    2025

  5. [5]

    Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance

    Guillaume Couairon, Jakob Verbeek, Holger Schwenk, and Matthieu Cord. Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance. InEleventh International Con- ference on Learning Representations, 2023. 4

    2023

  6. [6]

    Emerging properties in unified multimodal pretraining.ArXiv, abs/2505.14683,

    Chaorui Deng, Deyao Zhu, Kunchang Li, Chenhui Gou, Feng Li, Zeyu Wang, Shu Zhong, Weihao Yu, Xiaonan Nie, Ziang Song, Shi Guang, and Haoqi Fan. Emerging properties in unified multimodal pretraining.ArXiv, abs/2505.14683,

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Fireflow: Fast inversion of rectified flow for image semantic editing

    Yingying Deng, Xiangyu He, Changwang Mei, Peisong Wang, and Fan Tang. Fireflow: Fast inversion of rectified flow for image semantic editing. InForty-second Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2025

  8. [8]

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, A. Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas Muller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, Dustin Podell, Tim Dockhorn, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Alex Goodwin, Yannik Marek, and Robin Rombach. Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis.ArXiv, abs/2403.03206,

    arXiv

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Renoise: Real image inversion through iterative noising

    Daniel Garibi, Or Patashnik, Andrey V oynov, Hadar Averbuch-Elor, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Renoise: Real image inversion through iterative noising. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 395–413, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  2. [10]

    Zico Kolter, and Kaiming He

    Zhengyang Geng, Mingyang Deng, Xingjian Bai, J. Zico Kolter, and Kaiming He. Mean flows for one-step generative modeling. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. 2

    2025

  3. [11]

    Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron C

    Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. InAd- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2672–2680, 2014. 2

    2014

  4. [12]

    Magicvfx: Visual effects synthesis in just minutes

    Jiaqi Guo, Lianli Gao, Junchen Zhu, Jiaxin Zhang, Siyang Li, and Jingkuan Song. Magicvfx: Visual effects synthesis in just minutes. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [13]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. InAdvances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, pages 6840–6851, 2020. 2

    2020

  6. [14]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4396–4405, 2019. 2

    2019

  7. [15]

    Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8107–8116, 2020. 2

    2020

  8. [16]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, pages 26565–26577, 2022. 2

    2022

  9. [17]

    Flux.1 kontext: Flow matching for in-context image generation and editing in latent space

    Black Forest Labs, Stephen Batifol, Andreas Blattmann, Frederic Boesel, Saksham Consul, Cyril Diagne, Tim Dock- horn, Jack English, Zion English, Patrick Esser, Sumith Ku- lal, Kyle Lacey, Yam Levi, Cheng Li, Dominik Lorenz, Jonas M¨uller, Dustin Podell, Robin Rombach, Harry S...

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky T. Q. Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maxi- milian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. InEleventh International Conference on Learn- ing Representations, 2023. 2

    2023

  11. [19]

    Accelerating diffusion models for inverse problems through shortcut sampling

    Gongye Liu, Haoze Sun, Jiayi Li, Fei Yin, and Yujiu Yang. Accelerating diffusion models for inverse problems through shortcut sampling. InProceedings of the Thirty-Third In- ternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1101–1109, 2024. 4

    2024

  12. [20]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. InEleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 2

    2023

  13. [21]

    Pairedit: Learning semantic variations for exemplar- based image editing.ArXiv, abs/2506.07992, 2025

    Haoguang Lu, Jiacheng Chen, Zhenguo Yang, Aurele To- hokantche Gnanha, Fu Lee Wang, Qing Li, and Xudong Mao. Pairedit: Learning semantic variations for exemplar- based image editing.ArXiv, abs/2506.07992, 2025. 2

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jia- jun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions. InTenth International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2022. 2, 4

    2022

  15. [23]

    Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6038–6047, 2023. 2

    2023

  16. [24]

    T2i-adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models

    Chong Mou, Xintao Wang, Liangbin Xie, Jing Zhang, Zhon- gang Qi, Ying Shan, and Xiaohu Qie. T2i-adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4296–4304,...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Effective real image editing with accelerated iter- ative diffusion inversion

    Zhihong Pan, Riccardo Gherardi, Xiufeng Xie, and Stephen Huang. Effective real image editing with accelerated iter- ative diffusion inversion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15866– 15875, 2023. 2

    2023

  18. [26]

    Spatially-adaptive mul- tilayer selection for gan inversion and editing

    Gaurav Parmar, Yijun Li, Jingwan Lu, Richard Zhang, Jun- Yan Zhu, and Krishna Kumar Singh. Spatially-adaptive mul- tilayer selection for gan inversion and editing. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11389–11399, 2022. 2

    2022

  19. [27]

    Peebles and Saining Xie

    William S. Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion mod- els with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4172– 4182, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Semantic im- age inversion and editing using rectified stochastic differen- tial equations

    Litu Rout, Yujia Chen, Nataniel Ruiz, Constantine Carama- nis, Sanjay Shakkottai, and Wen-Sheng Chu. Semantic im- age inversion and editing using rectified stochastic differen- tial equations. InThirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. 2, 6, 7

    2025

  21. [29]

    Denois- ing diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denois- ing diffusion implicit models. InNinth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2021. 2

    2021

  22. [30]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 11895– 11907, 2019. 2

    2019

  23. [31]

    Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P. Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. InNinth International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2021. 2

    2021

  24. [32]

    Reedit: Multimodal exemplar-based image editing

    Ashutosh Srivastava, Tarun Ram Menta, Abhinav Java, Avadhoot Jadhav, Silky Singh, Surgan Jandial, and Balaji Krishnamurthy. Reedit: Multimodal exemplar-based image editing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 929–939, 2025. 2

    2025

  25. [33]

    Edict: Exact diffusion inversion via coupled transformations

    Bram Wallace, Akash Gokul, and Nikhil Vijay Naik. Edict: Exact diffusion inversion via coupled transformations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 22532–22541, 2023. 2

    2023

  26. [34]

    Taming rectified flow for inversion and editing

    Jiangshan Wang, Junfu Pu, Zhongang Qi, Jiayi Guo, Yue Ma, Nisha Huang, Yuxin Chen, Xiu Li, and Ying Shan. Taming rectified flow for inversion and editing. InForty-second In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. 3, 6, 7

    2025

  27. [35]

    Qwen-image technical report

    Chenfei Wu, Jiahao Li, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kaiyuan Gao, Kun Yan, Sheng ming Yin, Shuai Bai, Xiao Xu, Yilei Chen, Yuxiang Chen, Zecheng Tang, Zekai Zhang, Zhengyi Wang, An Yang, Bowen Yu, Chen Cheng, Dayiheng Liu, De- qing Li, Hang Zhang, Hao Meng, Hu Wei, Jingyuan Ni, K...

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Omnigen2: Exploration to advanced multimodal generation

    Chenyuan Wu, Pengfei Zheng, Ruiran Yan, Shitao Xiao, Xin Luo, Yueze Wang, Wanli Li, Xiyan Jiang, Yexin Liu, Junjie Zhou, Ze Liu, Ziyi Xia, Chaofan Li, Haoge Deng, Jiahao Wang, Kun Luo, Bo Zhang, Defu Lian, Xinlong Wang, Zhongyuan Wang, Tiejun Huang, and Zheng Liu. Omnigen2: Ex...

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Less-to-more generalization: Unlocking more controllability by in-context generation

    Shaojin Wu, Mengqi Huang, Wenxu Wu, Yufeng Cheng, Fei Ding, and Qian He. Less-to-more generalization: Unlocking more controllability by in-context generation. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 18682–18692, 2025. 2, 13

    2025

  30. [38]

    Gan inversion: A survey

    Weihao Xia, Yulun Zhang, Yujiu Yang, Jing-Hao Xue, Bolei Zhou, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Gan inversion: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intel- ligence, 45:3121–3138, 2021. 2

    2021

  31. [39]

    Omnigen: Unified image generation

    Shitao Xiao, Yueze Wang, Junjie Zhou, Huaying Yuan, Xin- grun Xing, Ruiran Yan, Shuting Wang, Tiejun Huang, and Zheng Liu. Omnigen: Unified image generation. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13294–13304, 2025. 1, 2

    2025

  32. [40]

    Dnaedit: Direct noise alignment for text-guided rectified flow editing

    Chenxi Xie, Ming hui Li, Shuai Li, Yuhui Wu, Qiaosi Yi, and Lei Zhang. Dnaedit: Direct noise alignment for text-guided rectified flow editing. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. 2, 3

    2025

  33. [41]

    Unveil inversion and in- variance in flow transformer for versatile image editing

    Pengcheng Xu, Boyuan Jiang, Xiaobin Hu, Donghao Luo, Qingdong He, Jiangning Zhang, Chengjie Wang, Yunsheng Wu, Charles Ling, and Boyu Wang. Unveil inversion and in- variance in flow transformer for versatile image editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer ...

    2025

  34. [42]

    Imagebrush: Learning visual in-context instructions for exemplar-based image manipulation

    ya sheng sun, Yifan Yang, Houwen Peng, Yifei Shen, Yuqing Yang, Han Hu, Lili Qiu, and Hideki Koike. Imagebrush: Learning visual in-context instructions for exemplar-based image manipulation. InAdvances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, pages 48723–48743, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  35. [43]

    Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion mod- els

    Binxin Yang, Shuyang Gu, Bo Zhang, Ting Zhang, Xuejin Chen, Xiaoyan Sun, Dong Chen, and Fang Wen. Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion mod- els. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18381–18391,

  36. [44]

    Diverse inpainting and editing with gan inversion

    Ahmet Burak Yildirim, Hamza Pehlivan, Bahri Batuhan Bilecen, and Aysegul Dundar. Diverse inpainting and editing with gan inversion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, pages 23063–23073,

  37. [45]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3836–3847, 2023. 2

    2023

  38. [46]

    In- domain gan inversion for real image editing

    Jiapeng Zhu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Bolei Zhou. In- domain gan inversion for real image editing. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 592–608, 2020. 2 10 Reversible Inversion for Training-Free Exemplar-guided Image Editing Supplementary Material Source Reference...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.