Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Improving Editability in Image Generation with Layer-wise Memory

T0 review · 4 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 The paper claims that storing every edit's latents, masks, and prompts in a layer-wise memory lets diffusion models chain many rough-mask edits, adding, layering, and deleting objects while keeping earlier content intact.

desk verdict A promising train-free method for sequential editing whose central latent-blending step (Eq. 9) mixes independent denoising trajectories without validation—send to peer review, but make them prove it works. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01079 v1 pith:NUZRMBTY submitted 2025-05-02 cs.CV eess.IV

Daneul Kim , Jaeah Lee , Jaesik Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords iterativeimageeditinglayer-wisememorybackgroundconsistencyguidancemulti-querydisentangledcross-attentionmaskorderdiffusioninpaintingmulti-editbenchmarklayout-to-imagegeneration
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 takes on a practical gap: editing tools handle a single change well, but a user who wants to add a lego man, then a jeep, then a dog in front of them usually loses earlier work or accumulates artifacts. The authors claim that if each edit's latents, masks, and prompt embeddings are stored as a layer-wise memory, a diffusion model can keep the unedited scene stable while slotting new objects into rough user-drawn masks, with later masks naturally read as being in front of earlier ones. Two mechanisms carry the argument: background consistency guidance, which blends freshly generated latents with memorized latents outside the current mask, and multi-query disentangled cross-attention, which gives each previous object and the background its own attention pass so new objects adapt to existing content. The same machinery also supports deleting an earlier occluded object by blending around it. If right, this would make multi-step image editing practical with minimal user effort, needing only rough masks and short prompts per step.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a pair of latent-space operations on a transformer-based diffusion backbone. Background Consistency Guidance (BCG) recalls the previous trajectory's saved latents from layer-wise memory and blends them pixel-wise with the new trajectory's latents outside the current mask, preserving the scene while avoiding a fresh forward pass on the original image, which the paper models as reducing cost from $C_f + \Omega$ to $\Omega$. Multi-Query Disentanglement (MQD) rewrites cross-attention so that the current object attends through its own mask, each earlier object attends through its mask minus later overlaps, and the background attends through the complement of all masks, with the attention outputs merged into the latent. The same latent-blending primitive, applied from an intermediate timestep against the two-steps-earlier latent, is what performs deletion.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline for eight to ten sequential edits on a single background and measure the reconstruction error of the never-masked background region against the first rendered frame. Because Eq. 2 blends two independently drawn latent trajectories at every step, drift would show as error growing with edit count, while a method that re-encodes the current image before each edit should stay flat; the paper reports metrics through five steps only, so this comparison is the direct test of the consistency claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that iterative image editing can be reduced to a memory-augmented inpainting procedure that needs no retraining and no precise segmentation. Each edit is assigned a mask order; a later mask is interpreted as the region that occludes earlier objects. At every step the model retrieves the stored latent trajectory of the previous edit, runs the denoiser for the new masked region, blends the two latents outside the mask via $Z_i = Z_{i-1}\odot(1-m_i) + Z_i\odot m_i$, and applies cross-attention separately to the current object, each earlier object, and the background prompt. On their Multi-Edit Bench, which crops each object layer and scores semantic alignment (LLaVa-generated captions against BLEU and METEOR) and visual alignment (CLIP crop scores), the authors report that the method outperforms single-shot inpainting baselines such as Blended Latent Diffusion and HD-Painter and layout-to-image baselines such as NoiseCollage and LooseControl, and that its scores stay stable from two to five editing steps. A secondary claim is improved editability: an earlier object that is now occluded can be removed by blending the two-steps-earlier latent with the current latent inside the mask and suppressing that object's prompt during partial denoising.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that latents from separate denoising runs, the memorized trajectory from the previous edit and the fresh trajectory for the current edit, can be blended pixel-by-pixel at every timestep with no alignment, and that this blend behaves like one consistent scene rather than like noise drawn from two different distributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can chain many edits with only rough masks and short prompts; insertion order fixes depth, so a later object naturally occludes earlier ones without any depth map or precise segmentation.
  • Because stored latents replace re-encoding the image at each edit, every step avoids a forward pass; the paper's cost model gives roughly a $(1+r)$-fold gain and its single-step measurement shows about 10% time savings, with the advantage growing over longer chains.
  • Deleting an earlier, now-occluded object no longer requires a precise brush: blending the pre-edit latent in under the mask and suppressing that object's prompt during denoising removes it while preserving the foreground object's identity.
  • Scores on the Multi-Edit Bench stay level from two to five editing steps while compared baselines decline after three steps, and on the single-turn EditBench the same pipeline stays competitive, suggesting the multi-step gains do not sacrifice single-edit quality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same memory-plus-blend recipe could likely lift onto other diffusion or flow-matching backbones beyond the one demonstrated here, because the mechanism lives in cross-attention and latent space rather than in a particular denoiser; this is an editorial extension, not a paper claim.
  • A stress test the paper leaves open is edit count beyond five: its benchmark stops at five steps, and its own measurements show memory growing linearly with stored latents, so whether background fidelity eventually drifts after many consecutive blends is undetermined by the reported experiments.
  • The mask-order-as-depth convention suggests a natural follow-up the paper does not explore: reordering or moving an existing layer (for instance, pulling the jeep in front of the dog) by reusing stored latents with edited masks, as the deletion routine already re-blends stored latents in a non-insertion way.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a training-free, rough-mask-based iterative image editing framework built on PixArt-α, with three components: layer-wise memory (storing per-step latents, prompts, and masks), Background Consistency Guidance (BCG), and Multi-Query Disentangled cross-attention (MQD). The central claim is that the method enables sequential edits in which previously edited content is preserved while new objects are naturally integrated, and that it outperforms both image-editing baselines (BLD, HD-Painter, SD3-Inpaint) and layout-to-image baselines on a new Multi-Edit Bench. The paper also presents an object-deletion mode that blends stored latents during partial denoising. The benchmark is generated with GPT-4-selected classes and template captions, and evaluation uses LLaVa-based BLEU/METEOR scores plus CLIP scores on mask-cropped regions.

Significance. The problem is genuine: most editing methods are single-turn, while practical workflows require sequential edits under occlusion and mask-order constraints. The framework is attractive because it is training-free, has no learnable parameters, and leverages a strong pretrained DiT backbone; the layer-wise memory design and the proposed benchmark address a real evaluation gap. The paper also reports ablations and computational measurements. However, the central consistency mechanism is an unvalidated spatial mixture of latents from independent denoising trajectories, the evaluation is performed entirely on the authors' own benchmark with backgrounds generated by their own pipeline and with no error bars, and the final method is below its own baseline on one reported metric. If the mechanism is validated with targeted experiments and the benchmark is made independently auditable, this could be a useful contribution to interactive multi-step editing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 3.4.3, Eq. (9) and Algorithm 1] The central consistency mechanism is not validated. Each edit starts from an independently sampled noise, so at every denoising step the DiT input is a spatial mixture of two different chains: the current run's latents inside m_i and the stored latents Z_{i-1}^t outside m_i. Standard latent blending (e.g., BLD) obtains background latents from one DDIM-inverted trajectory, whereas BCG deliberately skips that alignment, yet the paper provides no analysis of latent-space drift or distribution mismatch between the two chains. Table 1 reports only time/VRAM on a single edit and no quality metric. Since all multi-step results in Table 2 and Figs. 13-15 depend on Eq. (9), the claimed 'maintaining previous edits' could be carried by hard copying Z_{i-1}^t outside the mask, while seam, ghosting, and background degradation at low t would be invisible to the aggregate metrics. Please add (i) per-timestep drift measurements between the stored latents and the current run's latents in the unedited region, (ii) a comparison against an aligned DDIM-inversion baseline, and (iii) background-only quality metrics evaluated over multiple editing steps.
  2. [Sec. 4 and Table 2] The evaluation rests entirely on a benchmark constructed by the authors, with backgrounds generated by their own framework for all baselines, and no error bars or significance tests are reported. The benchmark is explicitly designed to emphasize mask order and occlusion, which is exactly the capability the method is built to showcase, so the reported margins (e.g., CLIPcrop 64.29 vs. 64.10 for NoiseCollage+ordering; METEOR 0.1513 vs. 0.1484 for HD-Painter) may not transfer to independent editing scenarios. Please report variance over multiple initializations and seeds, provide per-step results for all baselines (Fig. 11 currently shows only Ours, HD-Painter, and BLD), and either validate on an existing benchmark whose source images are not produced by the authors' pipeline or release the full dataset and evaluation protocol so the results are independently auditable.
  3. [Sec. 5.3, Table 3] The ablation shows that the proposed components monotonically decrease METEOR from 0.1586 (Baseline) to 0.1513 (Ours), with the QD step specifically reducing METEOR from 0.1585 to 0.1530 while CLIP increases only marginally. The text states that BCG preserves METEOR and claims consistent improvement, but the final system scores lower than vanilla PixArt-α on this semantic-alignment metric. Please explain this trade-off and report per-layer metrics, because averaging METEOR over layers can hide systematic degradation on background or occluded regions.
  4. [Sec. 3.3, Table 1] The paper claims 'about 10% reduction in computational time', but the reported mean times (4.1218 s for latent blending vs. 3.8992 s for BCG) imply a 5.4% reduction. The derivation in Eqs. (3)-(5) assumes a forward-pass cost Cf that is never measured, and the efficiency gain is reported only for a single-step edit. Please correct the claimed gain, measure Cf directly, and report a multi-step timing comparison, since the paper explicitly argues that the advantage grows with the number of edits.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 1] The update line in Algorithm 1 writes Z_t^i = z_K^i ⊙ m_i + Z_{i-1}^t ⊙ (1 - m_{i-1}), while Eq. (9) in the main text uses (1 - m_i). Please resolve this inconsistency for reproducibility.
  2. [Eq. (8) and Algorithm 1] Eq. (8) appears to omit the operator between z_i^attn and the summation, and Algorithm 1 starts the summation at j=1 while the surrounding text and Eq. (8) use j=0. Please make the formulas consistent.
  3. [Eq. (7)] The expression m_j - Σ_{l=j+1}^i m_l is not defined for binary masks; please specify that this denotes the relative complement of the later masks within m_j, using set-complement notation in the latent coordinate grid.
  4. [Fig. 11] The label 'METOER' in the middle panel should be 'METEOR'.
  5. [Figs. 13-15] The supplementary text states that 5 samples were drawn and the best-appearing sample was selected for qualitative comparison; this selection procedure should be disclosed in the corresponding figure captions, and ideally supplemented with random or median samples to avoid cherry-picking.
  6. [Table 5] The human preference study reports overall quality for Ours (3.47) below SD-XL (3.66) but does not provide the protocol details, number of raters per item, or inter-rater variability; please report these so the Likert-scale comparisons are interpretable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the method's equations define its mechanism, and the benchmark is an independent evaluation, not a restatement of the method's inputs.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained: Eqs. (6)-(9) define the algorithm (mask-conditioned cross-attention and latent blending with stored latents), and no parameter is fitted to the evaluation data, so no 'prediction' is statistically forced. The only resemblance to known methods is acknowledged: BCG is compared with Blended Latent Diffusion's latent blending ('While both approaches (i.e., LB, BCG) require denoising costs, BCG avoids repeated forward passes'), and Query-Disentanglement is credited to NoiseCollage, so there is no smuggled ansatz or renamed result. Multi-Edit Bench is author-constructed, and its metrics are internal (GPT-4 prompts, LLaVa captions, CLIP crops), but the benchmark does not define the method's success by construction: baseline methods receive the same masks and prompts and score lower, and the paper additionally reports an external single-turn benchmark (EditBench, Table 6). The limitation paragraph admits memory and time costs ('generating multiple objects takes longer, depending on the number of edits. Also, utilizing layer-wise memory requires additional memory costs') but does not reveal a circular dependency between the method and its evaluation. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; 'layer-wise memory' is a data structure. The system is train-free, so there are no learned parameters. The listed assumptions are the unproven premises the method relies on, primarily about latent-space behavior and the validity of the evaluation pipeline.

free parameters (3)
  • Deletion start step tau = 8 (out of 20 total steps)
    Hand-chosen to achieve '60% faster' deletion in Sec 3.5; not swept or justified, and the deletion quality/speed trade-off is not analyzed.
  • Classifier-free guidance scale = 7.5
    Inherited from PixArt-alpha default; not tuned for this method, so not a central free parameter.
  • Total denoising steps T = 20
    Standard PixArt-alpha setting; not varied.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pretrained PixArt-alpha provides a sufficiently good latent space for mask-guided inpainting and cross-attention merging.
    The entire pipeline is train-free and builds on this model's representations; invoked throughout Sec 3.
  • domain assumption Latent blending of independently sampled denoising trajectories preserves background consistency (Eq 2).
    This is the core assumption of BCG; no alignment or distributional analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Disentangled cross-attention with mask-subtracted regions (Eq 7) isolates object semantics without interference.
    The formula mj - sum_{l=j+1}^i ml assumes masks are compatible and the resulting regions are well-defined; no proof or empirical validation of interference is given.
  • domain assumption LLaVa-generated captions and BLEU/METEOR scores measure semantic alignment of edited images.
    Used for all benchmark results; no correlation with human judgments is reported for these metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving Editability in Image Generation with Layer-wise Memory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NUZRMBTY

@misc{pith2026250501079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving Editability in Image Generation with Layer-wise Memory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NUZRMBTY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01079}
}
read the original abstract

Most real-world image editing tasks require multiple sequential edits to achieve desired results. Current editing approaches, primarily designed for single-object modifications, struggle with sequential editing: especially with maintaining previous edits along with adapting new objects naturally into the existing content. These limitations significantly hinder complex editing scenarios where multiple objects need to be modified while preserving their contextual relationships. We address this fundamental challenge through two key proposals: enabling rough mask inputs that preserve existing content while naturally integrating new elements and supporting consistent editing across multiple modifications. Our framework achieves this through layer-wise memory, which stores latent representations and prompt embeddings from previous edits. We propose Background Consistency Guidance that leverages memorized latents to maintain scene coherence and Multi-Query Disentanglement in cross-attention that ensures natural adaptation to existing content. To evaluate our method, we present a new benchmark dataset incorporating semantic alignment metrics and interactive editing scenarios. Through comprehensive experiments, we demonstrate superior performance in iterative image editing tasks with minimal user effort, requiring only rough masks while maintaining high-quality results throughout multiple editing steps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01079 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview. Our framework enables the interactive generation of images with enhanced control but in a simple manner, by rough mask and prompt, through iterative scene editing. We utilize the background scene generated by our framework to edit in HD Painter [32] or Blended Latent Diffusion (BLD) [3] for comparison and commercial products like Photoshop [1] and Pincel [37]. Abstract Most real-world image editing tasks r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview. (a) The left denotes an illustration of how Multi Query Disentanglement is performed in the cross-attention layer. (b) The upper right figure shows Background Consistency Guidance with recalled latents, conducting latent blending with the saved latents. (c) The right below shows the layer-wise memory, saving the previous editing steps’ latents, masks, and prompt embeddings. multiple steps. To address this … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of our proposed Multi-Edit Benchmark for evaluation of iterative editing scenario. (a) explains the dataset gen￾eration pipeline through GPT-4 API, and (b) explains the evaluation methodology in visual alignment using CLIP and semantic alignment using LLaVa for single-image and in a layer-wise manner. ensures focused generation within the current mask order’s region. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on the effect of Query Disen￾tanglement (QD). baselines across key metrics. Among editing baselines, we demonstrate superior performance compared to Blended Latent Diffusion (BLD) [3] with SD-XL, HD-Painter [32], and SD3-ControlNet-Inpaint [20]. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison in image editing capability with latest image editing models. [3, 32] Note that the initial image is gener￾ated by our framework, which is equivalent to PixArt-α [13] with no mask input. ing QD to multi-query disentanglement (MQD) with layer￾wise memory inte…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Improved editability of image through Background Consistency Guidance and Multi-Query Disentangled cross at￾tention. Through recycling the previous step’s latents, we can remove the object that is behind the foreground object, enabling enhanced editability of the image…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison in interactive scenarios with existing T2I generative models. Stable Diffusion XL [38] and PixArt-α [13] use text input only. for single-step modifications, are insufficient for sequential editing. This underscores the necessity of specialized approaches lik…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overview of interactive image generation under various scenarios. Our approach can easily generate diverse images by editing in different ways. A. Implementation Details We provide comprehensive implementation details of our framework and baseline methods used for comp…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Analysis on computational resources for iterative editing. B. Analysis on Computational Overhead Sequential editing multiple times, as in Figs. 8 and 10, can make the user achieve the intended images. However, mul￾tiple editing with layer-wise memory requires additiona…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Extensive multi-editing scenario. Our framework enables sequential editing of multiple edits, more than just two or three times editing, meeting the user’s need to edit extensively on generated images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of BLEU, METOER, and CLIP score on each step. Step 1: Decide on the number of layers (n): Each im￾age in the dataset consists of n layers, where n ranges be￾tween 3 and 6, including the background layer. Step 2: Select reference class from ImageNet-1K: One …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison with other latest editing approaches [2, 32] with Multi-Edit Bench Dataset. The approaches in the first two rows show results with baseline editing approaches. The background image is generated by our framework. D.6. Effect of Editing Steps We conduct addit…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison with other latest editing approaches. The approaches in the first two rows for each example show results with baseline editing approaches. The background image is generated by our framework. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison under improved editing scenario. Ours maintain the background well compared to other commercial products [1, 37] or baselines [3, 32]. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison with depth-aware text-to-image approaches. The approaches in the first three rows utilize a depth map, exemplar image, and text prompt. The approaches in the next three rows get a depth map and text prompt. Our approach rivals the baseline approaches withou…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adobe Photoshop

    Adobe Inc. Adobe Photoshop. https://www.adobe. com / products / photoshop . html, 2024. Version

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images

    Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. In CVPR,

  3. [3]

    Blended latent diffusion

    Omri Avrahami, Ohad Fried, and Dani Lischinski. Blended latent diffusion. ACM TOG, 2023. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 20

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Hrs-bench: Holistic, reliable and scalable benchmark for text-to-image models

    Eslam Mohamed Bakr, Pengzhan Sun, Xiaogian Shen, Faizan Farooq Khan, Li Erran Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Hrs-bench: Holistic, reliable and scalable benchmark for text-to-image models. In ICCV, 2023. 2, 6, 14

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Filling-in by joint in- terpolation of vector fields and gray levels

    Coloma Ballester, Marcelo Bertalmio, Vicent Caselles, Guillermo Sapiro, and Joan Verdera. Filling-in by joint in- terpolation of vector fields and gray levels. IEEE TIP, 2001. 2

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with hu- man judgments

    Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with hu- man judgments. In IEEvaluation@ACL, 2005. 6

    2005

  7. [7]

    Multidiffusion: Fusing diffusion paths for controlled image generation

    Omer Bar-Tal, Lior Yariv, Yaron Lipman, and Tali Dekel. Multidiffusion: Fusing diffusion paths for controlled image generation. In ICML, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Patchmatch: A randomized correspon- dence algorithm for structural image editing

    Connelly Barnes, Eli Shechtman, Adam Finkelstein, and Dan B Goldman. Patchmatch: A randomized correspon- dence algorithm for structural image editing. ACM TOG,

    work page

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Image inpainting

    Marcelo Bertalmio, Guillermo Sapiro, Vicent Caselles, and Coloma Ballester. Image inpainting. In SIGGRAPH, 2000. 2

    2000

  2. [10]

    Mitra, and Peter Wonka

    Shariq Farooq Bhat, Niloy J. Mitra, and Peter Wonka. Loosecontrol: Lifting controlnet for generalized depth con- ditioning. In SIGGRAPH, 2024. 6, 7, 16

    2024

  3. [11]

    Flux, 2023

    BlackForestLabs. Flux, 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-12. 1

    2023

  4. [12]

    Pixart- σ: Weak-to-strong training of diffusion transformer for 4k text-to-image generation

    Junsong Chen, Chongjian Ge, Enze Xie, Yue Wu, Lewei Yao, Xiaozhe Ren, Zhongdao Wang, Ping Luo, Huchuan Lu, and Zhenguo Li. Pixart- σ: Weak-to-strong training of diffusion transformer for 4k text-to-image generation. arXiv:2403.04692, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Pixart-α: Fast training of dif- fusion transformer for photorealistic text-to-image synthesis

    Junsong Chen, Jincheng Yu, Chongjian Ge, Lewei Yao, Enze Xie, Yue Wu, Zhongdao Wang, James Kwok, Ping Luo, Huchuan Lu, and Zhenguo Li. Pixart-α: Fast training of dif- fusion transformer for photorealistic text-to-image synthesis. In ICLR, 2024. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13

    2024

  6. [14]

    Training- free layout control with cross-attention guidance

    Minghao Chen, Iro Laina, and Andrea Vedaldi. Training- free layout control with cross-attention guidance. In WACV,

  7. [15]

    Anyscene: Customized image synthesis with composited foreground

    Ruidong Chen, Lanjun Wang, Weizhi Nie, Yongdong Zhang, and An-An Liu. Anyscene: Customized image synthesis with composited foreground. In CVPR, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    Improving text-guided object inpainting with semantic pre-inpainting

    Yifu Chen, Jingwen Chen, Yingwei Pan, Yehao Li, Ting Yao, Zhineng Chen, and Tao Mei. Improving text-guided object inpainting with semantic pre-inpainting. In ECCV, 2024. 2

    2024

  9. [17]

    Diagnostic benchmark and itera- tive inpainting for layout-guided image generation

    Jaemin Cho, Linjie Li, Zhengyuan Yang, Zhe Gan, Lijuan Wang, and Mohit Bansal. Diagnostic benchmark and itera- tive inpainting for layout-guided image generation. InCVPR Workshop, 2024. 2, 6

    2024

  10. [18]

    Re- gion filling and object removal by exemplar-based image in- painting

    Antonio Criminisi, Patrick P ´erez, and Kentaro Toyama. Re- gion filling and object removal by exemplar-based image in- painting. IEEE TIP, 2004. 2

    2004

  11. [19]

    Build-a-scene: Interactive 3d layout control for diffusion-based image gen- eration

    Abdelrahman Eldesokey and Peter Wonka. Build-a-scene: Interactive 3d layout control for diffusion-based image gen- eration. In ICLR, 2025. 16

    2025

  12. [20]

    Scaling rectified flow trans- formers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas M ¨uller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, Dustin Podell, Tim Dockhorn, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Alex Goodwin, Yan- nik Marek, and Robin Rombach. Scaling rectified flow tr...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Layoutgpt: Compositional visual plan- ning and generation with large language models

    Weixi Feng, Wanrong Zhu, Tsu-jui Fu, Varun Jampani, Ar- jun Akula, Xuehai He, Sugato Basu, Xin Eric Wang, and William Yang Wang. Layoutgpt: Compositional visual plan- ning and generation with large language models. InNeurIPS,

  14. [22]

    Seed-data-edit technical report: A hybrid dataset for instruc- tional image editing

    Yuying Ge, Sijie Zhao, Chen Li, Yixiao Ge, and Ying Shan. Seed-data-edit technical report: A hybrid dataset for instruc- tional image editing. arXiv:2405.04007, 2024. 6

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Check locate rectify: A training- free layout calibration system for text-to-image generation

    Biao Gong, Siteng Huang, Yutong Feng, Shiwei Zhang, Yuyuan Li, and Yu Liu. Check locate rectify: A training- free layout calibration system for text-to-image generation. In CVPR, 2024. 2

    2024

  16. [24]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models. In NeurIPS, 2020. 2

    2020

  17. [25]

    Layerdiff: Exploring text-guided multi-layered composable image synthesis via layer-collaborative diffu- sion model

    Runhui Huang, Kaixin Cai, Jianhua Han, Xiaodan Liang, Renjing Pei, Guansong Lu, Songcen Xu, Wei Zhang, and Hang Xu. Layerdiff: Exploring text-guided multi-layered composable image synthesis via layer-collaborative diffu- sion model. In ECCV, 2024. 2

    2024

  18. [26]

    Compose and conquer: Diffusion-based 3d depth aware composable image synthe- sis

    Jonghyun Lee, Hansam Cho, Youngjoon Yoo, Seoung Bum Kim, and Yonghyun Jeong. Compose and conquer: Diffusion-based 3d depth aware composable image synthe- sis. In ICLR, 2024. 2, 17

    2024

  19. [27]

    StreamMultiDiffusion: real-time in- teractive generation with region-based semantic control

    Jaerin Lee, Daniel Sungho Jung, Kanggeon Lee, and Kyoung Mu Lee. StreamMultiDiffusion: real-time in- teractive generation with region-based semantic control. arXiv:2403.09055, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

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

    Yuheng Li, Haotian Liu, Qingyang Wu, Fangzhou Mu, Jian- wei Yang, Jianfeng Gao, Chunyuan Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation. In CVPR, 2023. 2, 13

    2023

  21. [29]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. In NeurIPS, 2023. 6 9

    2023

  22. [30]

    Place: Adaptive layout-semantic fusion for semantic image synthesis

    Zhengyao Lv, Yuxiang Wei, Wangmeng Zuo, and Kwan- Yee K Wong. Place: Adaptive layout-semantic fusion for semantic image synthesis. In CVPR, 2024. 2

    2024

  23. [31]

    I2ebench: A comprehensive benchmark for instruction- based image editing

    Yiwei Ma, Jiayi Ji, Ke Ye, Weihuang Lin, Zhibin Wang, Yonghan Zheng, Qiang Zhou, Xiaoshuai Sun, and Rongrong Ji. I2ebench: A comprehensive benchmark for instruction- based image editing. In NeurIPS, 2024. 2, 6, 14

    2024

  24. [32]

    Hd-painter: High-resolution and prompt-faithful text-guided image inpainting with diffusion models

    Hayk Manukyan, Andranik Sargsyan, Barsegh Atanyan, Zhangyang Wang, Shant Navasardyan, and Humphrey Shi. Hd-painter: High-resolution and prompt-faithful text-guided image inpainting with diffusion models. In ICLR, 2025. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 16, 17, 20

    2025

  25. [33]

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

    Chong Mou, Xintao Wang, Liangbin Xie, Yanze Wu, Jian Zhang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, and Xiaohu Qie. T2i- adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable abil- ity for text-to-image diffusion models. In AAAI, 2024. 17

    2024

  26. [34]

    Glide: Towards photorealistic image genera- tion and editing with text-guided diffusion models

    Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. Glide: Towards photorealistic image genera- tion and editing with text-guided diffusion models. InICML,

  27. [35]

    Lazy diffusion transformer for interactive image editing

    Yotam Nitzan, Zongze Wu, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, Daniel Cohen-Or, Taesung Park, and Micha¨el Gharbi. Lazy diffusion transformer for interactive image editing. InECCV,

  28. [36]

    Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In ACL, 2002. 6

    2002

  29. [37]

    Pincel: Ai image editor, 2024

    Pincel. Pincel: Ai image editor, 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-

    2024

  30. [38]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. In ICLR, 2024. 6, 8, 11, 13

    2024

  31. [39]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, Ronghang Hu, Chaitanya Ryali, Tengyu Ma, Haitham Khedr, Roman R¨adle, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Eric Mintun, Junt- ing Pan, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Nicolas Carion, Chao- Yuan Wu, Ross Girshick, Piotr Doll´ar, and Christoph Feic...

    2025

  32. [40]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object de- tection

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. You only look once: Unified, real-time object de- tection. In CVPR, 2016. 14

    2016

  33. [41]

    Move anything with layered scene diffusion

    Jiawei Ren, Mengmeng Xu, Jui-Chieh Wu, Ziwei Liu, Tao Xiang, and Antoine Toisoul. Move anything with layered scene diffusion. In CVPR, 2024. 2

    2024

  34. [42]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  35. [43]

    Noisecollage: A layout-aware text-to-image diffusion model based on noise cropping and merging

    Takahiro Shirakawa and Seiichi Uchida. Noisecollage: A layout-aware text-to-image diffusion model based on noise cropping and merging. In CVPR, 2024. 2, 6, 7

    2024

  36. [44]

    A picture is worth more than 77 text tokens: Evaluating clip- style models on dense captions

    Jack Urbanek, Florian Bordes, Pietro Astolfi, Mary Williamson, Vasu Sharma, and Adriana Romero-Soriano. A picture is worth more than 77 text tokens: Evaluating clip- style models on dense captions. In CVPR, 2024. 15

    2024

  37. [45]

    Fleet, Radu Soricut, Jason Baldridge, Mo- hammad Norouzi, Peter Anderson, and William Chan

    Su Wang, Chitwan Saharia, Ceslee Montgomery, Jordi Pont- Tuset, Shai Noy, Stefano Pellegrini, Yasumasa Onoe, Sarah Laszlo, David J. Fleet, Radu Soricut, Jason Baldridge, Mo- hammad Norouzi, Peter Anderson, and William Chan. Im- agen editor and editbench: Advancing and evaluati...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Instancediffusion: Instance-level control for image generation

    Xudong Wang, Trevor Darrell, Sai Saketh Rambhatla, Rohit Girdhar, and Ishan Misra. Instancediffusion: Instance-level control for image generation. In CVPR, 2024. 2

    2024

  39. [47]

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

    Jinheng Xie, Yuexiang Li, Yawen Huang, Haozhe Liu, Wen- tian Zhang, Yefeng Zheng, and Mike Zheng Shou. Boxdiff: Text-to-image synthesis with training-free box-constrained diffusion. In ICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  40. [48]

    Smartbrush: Text and shape guided object inpainting with diffusion model

    Shaoan Xie, Zhifei Zhang, Zhe Lin, Tobias Hinz, and Kun Zhang. Smartbrush: Text and shape guided object inpainting with diffusion model. In CVPR, 2023. 2

    2023

  41. [49]

    High-resolution image inpainting using multi- scale neural patch synthesis

    Chao Yang, Xin Lu, Zhe Lin, Eli Shechtman, Oliver Wang, and Hao Li. High-resolution image inpainting using multi- scale neural patch synthesis. In CVPR, 2017. 2

    2017

  42. [50]

    Contextual residual aggregation for ultra high-resolution image inpainting

    Zili Yi, Qiang Tang, Shekoofeh Azizi, Daesik Jang, and Zhan Xu. Contextual residual aggregation for ultra high-resolution image inpainting. In CVPR, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Free-form image inpainting with gated con- volution

    Jiahui Yu, Zhe Lin, Jimei Yang, Xiaohui Shen, Xin Lu, and Thomas Huang. Free-form image inpainting with gated con- volution. In ICCV, 2019. 2

    2019

  44. [52]

    Long-clip: Unlocking the long-text capability of clip

    Beichen Zhang, Pan Zhang, Xiaoyi Dong, Yuhang Zang, and Jiaqi Wang. Long-clip: Unlocking the long-text capability of clip. In ECCV, 2024. 15

    2024

  45. [53]

    Text-guided neural image inpainting

    Lisai Zhang, Qingcai Chen, Baotian Hu, and Shuang Jiang. Text-guided neural image inpainting. In ACM MM, 2020. 2

    2020

  46. [54]

    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 ICCV, 2023. 2, 11, 17

    2023

  47. [55]

    Text2layer: Layered image generation using latent diffusion model

    Xinyang Zhang, Wentian Zhao, Xin Lu, and Jeff Chien. Text2layer: Layered image generation using latent diffusion model. arXiv:2307.09781, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Image generation from layout

    Bo Zhao, Lili Meng, Weidong Yin, and Leonid Sigal. Image generation from layout. In CVPR, 2019. 2

    2019

  49. [57]

    Uni-controlnet: All-in-one control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Shihao Zhao, Dongdong Chen, Yen-Chun Chen, Jianmin Bao, Shaozhe Hao, Lu Yuan, and Kwan-Yee K Wong. Uni-controlnet: All-in-one control to text-to-image diffusion models. In NeurIPS, 2023. 17

    2023

  50. [58]

    A knightriding a horse

    Guangcong Zheng, Xianpan Zhou, Xuewei Li, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, and Xi Li. Layoutdiffusion: Controllable diffu- sion model for layout-to-image generation. In CVPR, 2023. 2 10 Improving Editability in Image Generation with Layer-wise Memory Supplementary Material ”A night cit...

    2023

Pith tools

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