Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

InstructAttribute: Fine-grained Object Attributes editing with Instruction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Object color and material can be edited from a plain sentence by a model trained on pairs generated with a training-free attention method, beating existing instruction-based editors on accuracy and preservation.

desk verdict A plausible training-free attention trick and a large new dataset, but the headline quantitative claim is undercut by an evaluation whose targets appear to come from the same SPAA generator that produced the training set. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00751 v2 pith:JNVFQZS2 submitted 2025-05-01 cs.CV

Xingxi Yin , Jingfeng Zhang , Yue Deng , Zhi Li , Yicheng Li , Yin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords diffusionmodelsinstruction-basedimageeditingobjectattributecolormaterialself-attentionmanipulationcross-attentionvalueamplificationsyntheticdatasetgeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that object-level color and material editing can be made precise and instruction-following. It introduces SPAA, a training-free procedure that edits an object's attribute in a text-to-image diffusion model by holding high-resolution self-attention maps fixed to the source image (to preserve structure) and amplifying the cross-attention value vectors of the attribute-describing words with a decaying ratio (to force the color or material change). SPAA is used to generate more than 1.1 million source-target attribute pairs across 43 colors, 14 materials, and 3,300 subjects, which are filtered automatically and paired with generated instruction templates; fine-tuning a diffusion model on this data yields InstructAttribute. If the claim is right, users can edit objects in natural language, for example turning a jacket's material to leather and its color to teal, without damaging shape or background. The paper's evidence is that InstructAttribute scores higher than existing instruction-based editors on structure and attribute metrics and wins a 100-example human preference study.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is SPAA (Structure Preservation and Attribute Amplification), a training-free intervention with three moving parts. First, the edited image's high-resolution self-attention maps (32x32 and 64x64) are overwritten by the source image's self-attention maps throughout denoising, based on the observation that these maps contain fine structural detail. Second, the cross-attention value vectors $V^{\text{cross}}$ of the attribute descriptor tokens are scaled as $V^{*} = (1 - \lambda) \cdot t \cdot R \cdot V$, where $R$ is an initial amplification ratio, $\lambda$ a decay factor, and $t$ the current timestep; the ablation studies show that early-timestep amplification is necessary and that a decaying ratio avoids over-saturation. Third, an automated filtering and instruction-generation pipeline wraps this generator into a dataset engine, using a vision-language model to confirm the attribute, a semantic-similarity score to reject structurally broken outputs, object detection and segmentation to reject background leakage, and a large language model to write instruction templates. Fine-tuning a latent diffusion model on the resulting triples is what turns the generator into the instruction-following editor InstructAttribute.

What would settle it

Run InstructAttribute and the baselines on a held-out set of real photographs with human-verified masks and target color and material labels; if InstructAttribute no longer leads on attribute accuracy and preservation on that independent benchmark, the paper's central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fine-grained object attribute editing can be decomposed into two separable attention interventions inside an existing text-to-image diffusion model. During denoising, the target image's self-attention maps at high resolutions (32x32 and above) are replaced by the source image's self-attention maps, which preserves the object's shape, texture, and background; simultaneously, the cross-attention value vectors assigned to the attribute descriptor tokens are multiplied by a timestep-aware decaying ratio (starting at 5 for color and 10 for material, decreasing by 0.1 or 0.2 per denoising step down to 1.0), which drives the attribute toward the requested color or material without distorting geometry. The paper argues that scaling the value matrix works where scaling the key matrix fails, because values carry attribute-specific feature content while keys govern the attention map layout. This training-free recipe, SPAA, is then used as a data engine: a vision-language model verifies that the target attribute is present, a grayscale semantic-similarity threshold discards structurally broken outputs, and a background-difference check discards edits that leak into the background. The surviving pairs, paired with instruction templates produced from in-context examples, form the Attribute Dataset, and instruction-tuning a latent diffusion model on it produces InstructAttribute. According to the paper's quantitative and human-preference evaluations, InstructAttribute achieves the best balance between attribute modification accuracy and structure/background preservation among all compared instruction-based editors.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the synthetic target images used for evaluation are not valid references for correct edits, because those targets come from the same SPAA pipeline that produced the training pairs, so the metric gains could be measuring imitation instead of editing ability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Editors trained on the Attribute Dataset can change an object's color to any of 43 listed colors or its material to any of 14 listed materials from a natural-language instruction while keeping structure and background intact.
  • SPAA can generate attribute-variation pairs at scale, so constructing fine-grained attribute training sets no longer requires manual editing or per-attribute fine-tuning.
  • The model supports within-hue color adjustments that change brightness and saturation, extending control beyond switching between distinct color names.
  • The attention-manipulation recipe also transfers to object painting-style transfer, although the paper excludes holistic style from the main study.
  • The automated filtering chain (attribute verification, similarity threshold, background-leak check) provides a reusable recipe for curating other fine-grained visual attribute datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reported numbers hold up, the main lesson is that the data engine matters more than the training objective: an instruction-based editor's success on fine-grained attributes is set by the quality and coverage of the synthetic pairs it is trained on.
  • A direct way to test that lesson is to train the same recipe on an independently produced set of object-attribute pairs, such as manually edited real photographs; if the performance gap over baselines shrinks, the reported advantage largely reflects the SPAA-generated training data rather than the method itself.
  • Because SPAA's value-amplification step acts on the attribute descriptor's cross-attention values, the same mechanism should transfer to other attribute types carried by values, such as texture, lighting, or facial expression, and the paper's style-transfer result is a first hint of that generality.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SPAA, a training-free method for generating object-level attribute variants by replacing high-resolution self-attention maps with source maps and amplifying the cross-attention value vectors of attribute descriptors under a decaying ratio. Using SPAA, the authors build an automatically curated Attribute Dataset of color and material edits, generate instruction triples with GPT-4o, and fine-tune InstructAttribute from Stable Diffusion via the InstructPix2Pix training objective. The central claim is that InstructAttribute outperforms existing instruction-based image editing methods on fine-grained color and material modification while preserving object structure and background. This claim is supported by qualitative comparisons, quantitative metrics on two newly constructed evaluation sets, and a human preference study.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would make three contributions: a mechanistic analysis of self-attention and cross-attention roles in attribute editing, a large-scale synthetic dataset for object color and material editing, and a fine-tuned instruction-following model with a favorable structure-attribute trade-off. The ablation in Table 1 and the attention-map visualizations are useful evidence for the SPAA design choices. The scale of the dataset and the inclusion of a human preference study are also positive features. However, the quantitative evaluation appears to be circular because the pseudo-ground-truth targets are likely generated by the same SPAA pipeline that produced the training data, so the reported margins may partly measure agreement with SPAA's output distribution rather than editing quality. The independent human study is too small and too thinly reported to carry the full burden of the superiority claim by itself. These issues are fixable but require additional evidence or a substantial revision of the evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, Table 2] The quantitative evaluation is circular as described. The paper does not state how the 3,346 material and 28,337 color target images in the evaluation sets were generated, and the only attribute-variation engine described in the manuscript is the SPAA pipeline of Section 4, which is also the source of the training triples in the Attribute Dataset. If the evaluation targets are SPAA outputs, then the DS, SSIM, CS, LPIPS-bg, and L1-hue numbers measure how closely each model reproduces SPAA's filtered output distribution, not how well it performs attribute editing in an independent sense. This is especially problematic because the SPAA hyperparameters (R=5 with lambda=0.1 for color, R=10 with lambda=0.2 for material) were explicitly chosen to maximize success under the same LLaVa/DINO filtering criteria used for dataset construction (Section 5, Table 1). The authors must state explicitly how the evaluation targets were constructed; if SPAA was used, they should add an independent evaluation set with manually verified edits or real-image edits, or justify why similarity to SPAA outputs is the correct notion of editing quality.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (after Algorithm 1) and Section 5] The amplification schedule is internally inconsistent as written. The text says that R=5 for color and R=10 for material is an initial ratio that decays per denoising step until it reaches 1.0, but the formula V_T*_cross = (1-lambda)*t*R*V_T_cross_i with t decreasing from T to 1 gives an effective initial multiplier of (1-lambda)*T*R (for example, 4500 for color when T=1000) and a final multiplier of (1-lambda)*R. The ratio described as 'initial' in Section 5 is not the ratio at the first denoising step under this formula. Please define t precisely as a normalized timestep, an absolute diffusion timestep, or a step index, and state the exact schedule; this is load-bearing for reproducing the data generation and for interpreting the ablation in Figure 7.
  3. [Section 6, Human Preference Study and Table 3] The human preference study is the only independent evidence for the main claim, but it is currently underreported. It uses 100 randomly sampled source-target examples and 20 annotators, and Table 3 reports only raw preference percentages without inter-annotator agreement, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Because the quantitative benchmarks are subject to the circularity noted above, this study carries too much weight to be summarized in a single paragraph. Please report the full protocol, the per-example agreement statistics, and a statistical comparison against the baselines.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistencies in notation, including 'discriptors' for 'descriptors', 'quantifyes' for 'quantifies', 'to to' in the Prompt-to-Prompt discussion, and the heading '5. InstructionAttribute' which does not match the model name 'InstructAttribute' used elsewhere.
  2. [Section 6, Table 2] The table column 'L1Hue obj' is described in the text as 'L1 loss of HVS of the object area'; please define the acronym and explain exactly how the object-area mask is obtained for source and target images, since the choice of mask has a direct effect on this metric.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 6] The baselines cite HIVE as [66] in the related work but as [20] in Section 6 and in Figures 13-15, while reference [20] appears to describe a different model (ACE). Please harmonize the method names and reference entries.
  4. [Algorithm 1, line 6] The notation DM(z_S,t,P_S,t) is ambiguous; the denoising function should be given a clear signature indicating which arguments are the latent, the timestep, and the prompt.
  5. [Section 6, figures 13-15] The text and captions alternate between 'InstructDiffusion (InsDiff)' and 'InsDiff'; please use one consistent abbreviation.
  6. [Section 4, Figure 4] The claim that replacing self-attention maps at resolutions higher than 32x32 preserves structure is supported by qualitative examples but not quantified; adding a small quantitative ablation would strengthen the analysis.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Table 2's quantitative evaluation is partly circular: the material/color targets are generated by the same SPAA pipeline that produced InstructAttribute's training set, so the reported gains partly measure imitation of SPAA.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6, Quantitative evaluation (Table 2); Section 4 Object-Attribute Data Engine; Section 5 Training Dataset]
    "Given the lack of publicly available datasets for evaluating material and color modification tasks, we developed two specialized datasets designed for quantitative analysis, addressing material and color modification tasks independently. For the material modification task, we randomly selected 100 subjects and generated 239 source images with StableDiffusion [53] checkpoints V1.4 with a random seed. For each source image, we modified the material to all 14 fine-grained materials, resulting in a total of 3,346 pairs of source and target images."

    The only attribute-variation engine described anywhere in the paper is the SPAA pipeline of Section 4, which was used to build the Attribute Dataset, and Section 5 explicitly instruction-tunes InstructAttribute on that SPAA-generated, filtered data. Section 6 does not describe any independent way of producing the 'modified' material/color targets; under the paper's own pipeline, those targets are SPAA outputs filtered by the same LLaVa/DINO/background-leakage criteria as the training triples.

full rationale

The SPAA method itself (self-attention map replacement plus decaying cross-attention value amplification, Section 4 and Algorithm 1) is a self-contained, training-free recipe with ablation studies, and its qualitative demonstrations do not reduce to its inputs. The circularity is concentrated in the quantitative evaluation. Section 6 constructs material and color pseudo-ground truths by 'modify[ing]' each source image, but the only modifier presented in the paper is SPAA, the same engine that generated the Attribute Dataset and the same distribution on which InstructAttribute was fine-tuned. Consequently, the Table 2 scores largely measure agreement with SPAA-filtered generator outputs, giving the proposed model a partially self-referential advantage. The human preference study in Table 3 is genuinely independent and supports the qualitative direction, so the paper is not wholly circular; nevertheless, the headline quantitative claim rests in part on a generator-imitation benchmark. The paper's own limitation statement, that the LLaVa-DINO-SAM filters 'risk excluding a valid target image,' further underscores that these filtered targets are not an independent gold standard.

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

The method is built from empirical claims about attention behavior in Stable Diffusion and from several hand-set filtering/generation thresholds; these are the assumptions the reader does not get for free. No new physical or conceptual entity is introduced; the new artifacts are a dataset and a fine-tuned model.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial cross-attention value amplification ratio R for color descriptors = 5
    Section 5: 'we find that initially the cross-attention value amplifying ratio of the color descriptor to 5 ... yields the optimal target color image success rate.'
  • Per-step decay of amplification ratio for color = 0.1 per step down to 1.0
    Section 5: 'gradually reducing it by 0.1 per denoising step until it reaches 1.0 yields the optimal... success rate.'
  • Initial cross-attention value amplification ratio R for material descriptors = 10
    Section 5: 'initializing the cross-attention Value amplifying ratio at 10 ... achieves the highest success rate.'
  • Per-step decay of amplification ratio for material = 0.2 per step down to 1.0
    Section 5: 'progressively reducing it by 0.2 per denoising step until reaching 1.0.'
  • DINO grayscale score threshold for retaining target images = 0.90 (material) / 0.98 (color)
    Section 4: 'discarding targets with a score below a certain threshold (0.90 for material and 0.98 for color attribute)' chosen empirically.
  • Background attribute leakage pixel threshold = 50
    Section 4: 'If the count exceeds a predefined threshold... the threshold is set to 50.'
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-attention maps in stable diffusion encode object structure, with high-resolution blocks encoding fine structural detail.
    Section 4 and Figures 3-4: the whole structure-preservation mechanism rests on this empirical claim; no formal proof.
  • domain assumption Amplifying cross-attention value vectors of an attribute descriptor changes the attribute without distorting structure, while amplifying key vectors distorts structure.
    Section 4, Figure 5: stated as an empirical finding from ablations; used as the basis for SPAA's value-only amplification.
  • domain assumption LLaVA yes/no responses correctly identify whether the target attribute is present, and DINO grayscale similarity tracks object structure preservation.
    Section 4 (target attribute image selection) and Section 6 (quantitative metrics); filtering and final numbers depend on these proxies.
  • domain assumption Instruction triples generated by GPT-4o via in-context learning are diverse and semantically aligned with the image pairs.
    Section 4, instruction template construction; the training signal is derived from these generated instructions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of InstructAttribute: Fine-grained Object Attributes editing with Instruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JNVFQZS2

@misc{pith2026250500751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: InstructAttribute: Fine-grained Object Attributes editing with Instruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JNVFQZS2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00751}
}
read the original abstract

Text-to-image (T2I) diffusion models are widely used in image editing due to their powerful generative capabilities. However, achieving fine-grained control over specific object attributes, such as color and material, remains a considerable challenge. Existing methods often fail to accurately modify these attributes or compromise structural integrity and overall image consistency. To fill this gap, we introduce Structure Preservation and Attribute Amplification (SPAA), a novel training-free framework that enables precise generation of color and material attributes for the same object by intelligently manipulating self-attention maps and cross-attention values within diffusion models. Building on SPAA, we integrate multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) to automate data curation and instruction generation. Leveraging this object attribute data collection engine, we construct the Attribute Dataset, encompassing a comprehensive range of colors and materials across diverse object categories. Using this generated dataset, we propose InstructAttribute, an instruction-tuned model that enables fine-grained and object-level attribute editing through natural language prompts. This capability holds significant practical implications for diverse fields, from accelerating product design and e-commerce visualization to enhancing virtual try-on experiences. Extensive experiments demonstrate that InstructAttribute outperforms existing instruction-based baselines, achieving a superior balance between attribute modification accuracy and structural preservation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00751 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Given an unrendered 3D down jacket image with front [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline of the Attribute Dataset Collection Engine. This figure illustrates our comprehensive pipeline for constructing a robust [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Impact of Varying Self-Attention Map Resolutions on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Heatmaps of Self-Attention Maps from Different At [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-Attention Key and Value Amplification for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of Object-Attribute Generation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SPAA for object Painting Style Generation.This fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustrative Failure Cases of Attribute Modification with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Examples of Source and Target Image Pairs for Ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Examples of Instructional Triple Data Samples.This [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparative Results of Instruction-Based Color Alteration on Common Colors. This figure presents a comparative analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparative Results of Instruction-Based Color Al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparative Material Alteration with Instruction-Based Methods. This figure presents a comparative analysis of material alter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Results of attribute alterations using our InstructAttribute. a) This figure demonstrates the ability of our method in performing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SEED: A Benchmark Dataset for Sequential Facial Attribute Editing with Diffusion Models

    cs.CV 2025-05 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    SEED is a 91,526-image benchmark of diffusion-generated sequential facial edits with sequence, mask, and prompt annotations, and FAITH adds DWT high-frequency cues to a transformer for edit-sequence detection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30:I, 2017

    Vaswani Ashish. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30:I, 2017. 3

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis

    Andrew Brock, Jeff Donahue, and Karen Simonyan. Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.11096, 2018. 1

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    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. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 11 Figure 16. Results of attribute alterations using our InstructAttribute. a) This figure demonstrates th...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Colorpeel: Color prompt learning with diffusion models via color and shape disentanglement

    Muhammad Atif Butt, Kai Wang, Javier Vazquez-Corral, and Joost van de Weijer. Colorpeel: Color prompt learning with diffusion models via color and shape disentanglement. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 2024. 5

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Masactrl: Tuning-free mu- tual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing

    Mingdeng Cao, Xintao Wang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, Xi- aohu Qie, and Yinqiang Zheng. Masactrl: Tuning-free mu- tual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 22560–22570, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 6

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on com- puter vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021. 4, 7, 10

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level im- age customization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09481, 2023

    Xi Chen, Lianghua Huang, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Hengshuang Zhao. Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level im- age customization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09481, 2023. 1

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Stargan: Unified genera- tive adversarial networks for multi-domain image-to-image translation

    Yunjey Choi, Minje Choi, Munyoung Kim, Jung-Woo Ha, Sunghun Kim, and Jaegul Choo. Stargan: Unified genera- tive adversarial networks for multi-domain image-to-image translation. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8789–8797,

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Stargan v2: Diverse image synthesis for multiple domains

    Yunjey Choi, Youngjung Uh, Jaejun Yoo, and Jung-Woo Ha. Stargan v2: Diverse image synthesis for multiple domains. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 8188–8197, 2020. 1

    2020

  2. [10]

    Diffedit: Diffusion-based seman- tic image editing with mask guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11427, 2022

    Guillaume Couairon, Jakob Verbeek, Holger Schwenk, and Matthieu Cord. Diffedit: Diffusion-based seman- tic image editing with mask guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11427, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image 12 database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image 12 database. In2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009. 8

    2009

  4. [12]

    Visualizing ambiguity: Analyzing linguistic ambigu- ity resolution in text-to-image models.Computers, 14(1):19,

    Wala Elsharif, Mahmood Alzubaidi, James She, and Marco Agus. Visualizing ambiguity: Analyzing linguistic ambigu- ity resolution in text-to-image models.Computers, 14(1):19,

  5. [13]

    Diffusion self-guidance for control- lable image generation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:16222–16239, 2023

    Dave Epstein, Allan Jabri, Ben Poole, Alexei Efros, and Aleksander Holynski. Diffusion self-guidance for control- lable image generation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:16222–16239, 2023. 1

    2023

  6. [14]

    Guiding instruction-based im- age editing via multimodal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17102, 2023

    Tsu-Jui Fu, Wenze Hu, Xianzhi Du, William Yang Wang, Yinfei Yang, and Zhe Gan. Guiding instruction-based im- age editing via multimodal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17102, 2023. 3, 8, 9, 10, 11

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Instructdiffusion: A generalist modeling inter- face for vision tasks

    Zigang Geng, Binxin Yang, Tiankai Hang, Chen Li, Shuyang Gu, Ting Zhang, Jianmin Bao, Zheng Zhang, Houqiang Li, Han Hu, et al. Instructdiffusion: A generalist modeling inter- face for vision tasks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Pair-diffusion: Object-level image editing with structure- and-appearance paired diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17546, 1, 2023

    Vidit Goel, Elia Peruzzo, Yifan Jiang, Dejia Xu, Nicu Sebe, Trevor Darrell, Zhangyang Wang, and Humphrey Shi. Pair-diffusion: Object-level image editing with structure- and-appearance paired diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17546, 1, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Generative adversarial nets.Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets.Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 1

    2014

  10. [18]

    Vec- tor quantized diffusion model for text-to-image synthesis

    Shuyang Gu, Dong Chen, Jianmin Bao, Fang Wen, Bo Zhang, Dongdong Chen, Lu Yuan, and Baining Guo. Vec- tor quantized diffusion model for text-to-image synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 10696–10706, 2022. 1

    2022

  11. [19]

    Focus on your instruction: Fine-grained and multi-instruction image editing by atten- tion modulation

    Qin Guo and Tianwei Lin. Focus on your instruction: Fine-grained and multi-instruction image editing by atten- tion modulation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR),

  12. [20]

    Ace: All- round creator and editor following instructions via diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00086, 2024

    Zhen Han, Zeyinzi Jiang, Yulin Pan, Jingfeng Zhang, Chao- jie Mao, Chenwei Xie, Yu Liu, and Jingren Zhou. Ace: All- round creator and editor following instructions via diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00086, 2024. 8, 9, 10, 11

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 1

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 1

    2020

  16. [24]

    Kv inversion: Kv embeddings learning for text-conditioned real image action editing

    Jiancheng Huang, Yifan Liu, Jin Qin, and Shifeng Chen. Kv inversion: Kv embeddings learning for text-conditioned real image action editing. InChinese Conference on Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision (PRCV), pages 172–184. Springer, 2023. 1

    2023

  17. [25]

    Smartedit: Exploring complex instruction-based image editing with multimodal large lan- guage models

    Yuzhou Huang, Liangbin Xie, Xintao Wang, Ziyang Yuan, Xiaodong Cun, Yixiao Ge, Jiantao Zhou, Chao Dong, Rui Huang, Ruimao Zhang, et al. Smartedit: Exploring complex instruction-based image editing with multimodal large lan- guage models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conferenc...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Unicolor: A unified framework for multi-modal colorization with trans- former.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 41(6):1–16,

    Zhitong Huang, Nanxuan Zhao, and Jing Liao. Unicolor: A unified framework for multi-modal colorization with trans- former.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 41(6):1–16,

  19. [27]

    Hq-edit: A high-quality dataset for instruction-based image editing

    Mude Hui, Siwei Yang, Bingchen Zhao, Yichun Shi, Heng Wang, Peng Wang, Yuyin Zhou, and Cihang Xie. Hq-edit: A high-quality dataset for instruction-based image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09990, 2024. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gpt-4o system card

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perel- man, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Weli- hinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024. 1, 4, 8

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    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 vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 4401–4410, 2019. 1

    2019

  22. [30]

    Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6007–6017, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  23. [31]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations.International journal of computer vision, 123:32–73, 2017

    Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalan- tidis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, et al. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations.International journal of computer...

    2017

  25. [33]

    Alina Kuznetsova, Hassan Rom, Neil Alldrin, Jasper Ui- jlings, Ivan Krasin, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Shahab Kamali, Stefan Popov, Matteo Malloci, Alexander Kolesnikov, et al. The open images dataset v4: Unified image classification, object detection, and visual relationship detection...

    1956

  26. [34]

    Text guided image editing with au- tomatic concept locating and forgetting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19708, 2024

    Jia Li, Lijie Hu, Zhixian He, Jingfeng Zhang, Tianhang Zheng, and Di Wang. Text guided image editing with au- tomatic concept locating and forgetting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19708, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Layerdiffusion: Layered controlled image editing with dif- fusion models

    Pengzhi Li, Qinxuan Huang, Yikang Ding, and Zhiheng Li. Layerdiffusion: Layered controlled image editing with dif- fusion models. InSIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Technical Commu- nications, pages 1–4. none, 2023. 1

    2023

  28. [36]

    Control color: Multi- 13 modal diffusion-based interactive image colorization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10855, 2024

    Zhexin Liang, Zhaochen Li, Shangchen Zhou, Chongyi Li, and Chen Change Loy. Control color: Multi- 13 modal diffusion-based interactive image colorization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10855, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

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

    2014

  30. [38]

    Towards understanding cross and self-attention in stable diffusion for text-guided image editing

    Bingyan Liu, Chengyu Wang, Tingfeng Cao, Kui Jia, and Jun Huang. Towards understanding cross and self-attention in stable diffusion for text-guided image editing. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7817–7826, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2024

  31. [39]

    Visual instruction tuning, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning, 2023. 1, 3, 4, 7

    2023

  32. [40]

    Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05499, 2023

    Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Chunyuan Li, Jianwei Yang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, et al. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05499, 2023. 4, 7

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Mate- rial palette: Extraction of materials from a single image

    Ivan Lopes, Fabio Pizzati, and Raoul de Charette. Mate- rial palette: Extraction of materials from a single image. In CVPR, 2024. 1, 2, 5

    2024

  34. [42]

    Fixed-point inversion for text- to-image diffusion models.CoRR, 2023

    Barak Meiri, Dvir Samuel, Nir Darshan, Gal Chechik, Shai Avidan, and Rami Ben-Ari. Fixed-point inversion for text- to-image diffusion models.CoRR, 2023. 2

    2023

  35. [43]

    Sdedit: Image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021

    Chenlin Meng, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jiajun Wu, Jun- Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    On distillation of guided diffusion models

    Chenlin Meng, Robin Rombach, Ruiqi Gao, Diederik Kingma, Stefano Ermon, Jonathan Ho, and Tim Salimans. On distillation of guided diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 14297–14306, 2023. 1

    2023

  37. [45]

    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. 1, 2

    2023

  38. [46]

    Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741, 2021

    Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741, 2021. 1

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Dall·e 3 system card.https://openai.com/ research/dall-e-3-system-card, 2023

    OpenAI. Dall·e 3 system card.https://openai.com/ research/dall-e-3-system-card, 2023. 3

    2023

  40. [48]

    Gpt-4v system card.https://openai.com/ index/gpt-4v-system-card/, 2023

    OpenAI. Gpt-4v system card.https://openai.com/ index/gpt-4v-system-card/, 2023. 3

    2023

  41. [49]

    Localizing object-level shape variations with text-to-image diffusion models

    Or Patashnik, Daniel Garibi, Idan Azuri, Hadar Averbuch- Elor, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Localizing object-level shape variations with text-to-image diffusion models. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 23051–23061, 2023. 1

    2023

  42. [50]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. InInternational conference on machine learning, p...

    2021

  44. [52]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 1 (2):3, 2022

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 1 (2):3, 2022. 1

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 1, 8, 10

    2022

  46. [54]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. InMedical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, par...

    2015

  47. [55]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:36479–36494, 2022

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

    2022

  48. [56]

    Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and genera- tion tasks

    Shelly Sheynin, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Yuval Kirstain, Amit Zohar, Oron Ashual, Devi Parikh, and Yaniv Taigman. Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and genera- tion tasks. InNone, 2023. 3

    2023

  49. [57]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    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.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020. 1

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation

    Narek Tumanyan, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1921–1930, 2023. 2, 3

    1921

  51. [59]

    Singular value decomposition and principal component anal- ysis

    Michael E Wall, Andreas Rechtsteiner, and Luis M Rocha. Singular value decomposition and principal component anal- ysis. InA practical approach to microarray data analysis, pages 91–109. Springer, 2003. 4

    2003

  52. [60]

    Edict: Exact diffusion inversion via coupled transformations

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

    2023

  53. [61]

    Training-free text-guided image editing with visual autoregressive model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23897, 2025

    Yufei Wang, Lanqing Guo, Zhihao Li, Jiaxing Huang, Pichao Wang, Bihan Wen, and Jian Wang. Training-free text-guided image editing with visual autoregressive model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23897, 2025. 2

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to 14 structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to 14 structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 10

    2004

  55. [63]

    L-cad: Language-based colorization with any-level descrip- tions using diffusion priors.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:77174–77186, 2023

    Shuchen Weng, Peixuan Zhang, Yu Li, Si Li, Boxin Shi, et al. L-cad: Language-based colorization with any-level descrip- tions using diffusion priors.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:77174–77186, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  56. [64]

    Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction- guided image editing

    Kai Zhang, Lingbo Mo, Wenhu Chen, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction- guided image editing. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11

    2023

  57. [65]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 10

    2018

  58. [66]

    Hive: Harnessing human feedback for instructional visual editing

    Shu Zhang, Xinyi Yang, Yihao Feng, Can Qin, Chia-Chih Chen, Ning Yu, Zeyuan Chen, Huan Wang, Silvio Savarese, Stefano Ermon, et al. Hive: Harnessing human feedback for instructional visual editing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni...

    2024

  59. [67]

    Ultraedit: Instruction-based fine-grained im- age editing at scale, 2024

    Haozhe Zhao, Xiaojian Ma, Liang Chen, Shuzheng Si, Ru- jie Wu, Kaikai An, Peiyu Yu, Minjia Zhang, Qing Li, and Baobao Chang. Ultraedit: Instruction-based fine-grained im- age editing at scale, 2024. 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 15

    2024

Pith tools

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