Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

NanoControl: A Lightweight Framework for Precise and Efficient Control in Diffusion Transformer

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read NanoControl claims spatial control for diffusion transformers costs only 0.024% extra parameters and 0.029% extra FLOPs.

desk verdict The KV-concat mechanism is a sensible incremental idea, but the paper's headline efficiency claim ignores the attention cost of lengthening K/V in every block. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10424 v1 pith:NX2Z7H2U submitted 2025-08-14 cs.CV

Shanyuan Liu , Jian Zhu , Junda Lu , Yue Gong , Liuzhuozheng Li , Bo Cheng , Yuhang Ma , Liebucha Wu
show 3 more authors
Xiaoyu Wu Dawei Leng Yuhui Yin
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords diffusiontransformercontrollabletext-to-imagelow-rankadaptationKV-ContextAugmentationefficientcontrolFluxNetimageconditioning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that adding spatial controls—edge maps, depth, color hints—to a diffusion-transformer text-to-image model does not require duplicating the backbone or paying a large inference penalty. It introduces a LoRA-style side branch that creates condition-specific keys and values, plus a KV-Context Augmentation mechanism that concatenates them into the attention of every block. On the Flux.1 dev backbone, the paper reports state-of-the-art controllability with only 0.024% added parameters and 0.029% added FLOPs. If true, this makes controllable generation nearly free for DiT-based systems and removes the main barrier to deploying them on limited hardware.

What carries the argument

The KV-Context Augmentation Mechanism: in each MM-DiT block, condition-specific key and value vectors (produced by a LoRA-style control module from the VAE-encoded condition) are concatenated with the backbone's text and image keys and values, while queries remain the original text/image tokens. This injects the original conditioning signal directly into every attention layer, letting the network fuse control via attention rather than addition, and avoiding a duplicated backbone.

What would settle it

Measure or profile the actual FLOPs of NanoControl on a 512×512 input with the condition map included; if the attention stage's GFLOPs increase by more than ~1% of the backbone when the condition token count is realistic (hundreds or thousands of tokens), the reported 0.029% is not accurate. Alternatively, reproduce Table 2 by counting operations on the published architecture if code becomes available, or run the model on a device and compare end-to-end inference time against the base Flux model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a control signal can be fused into a frozen diffusion transformer by computing per-block low-rank key and value projections from the conditioning input and appending those to the backbone's own keys and values inside each multimodal attention layer, without modifying the queries. The paper's NanoControl variant, trained once on four spatially aligned tasks, reports best or near-best controllability (Hausdorff distance / MSE) and image quality (FID, MUSIQ) against Flux-based ControlNet variants and OminiControl, while raising the parameter count by 0.024% and GFLOPs by 0.029% at 512×512. The authors also show the module composes with an external style LoRA and scales

Load-bearing premise

The claimed near-zero overhead in FLOPs rests on the premise that appending condition-specific keys and values to the attention sequence in every block costs almost no additional computation—i.e., that the condition contributes only a tiny number of tokens relative to the image and text tokens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spatial controllability can be added to a DiT text-to-image model with a parameter overhead of roughly 3M and a FLOPs overhead of roughly 3G at 512×512, replacing ControlNet-style add-ons that cost hundreds of millions of parameters.
  • The direct per-block injection of the original condition outperforms layer-by-layer feature transmission, per the paper's ablation, which would push future controller designs toward repeated direct injection.
  • The method remains plug-and-play: composing with an external style LoRA preserves both style and controllability, suggesting the control branch does not interfere with backbone-level adapters.
  • At 1024×1024, the added compute stays an order of magnitude below OminiControl (11 G vs 26,539 G), making high-resolution controlled generation more practical.
  • The approach transfers across multiple condition modalities (Canny, depth, HED, colorization) with a single training recipe, indicating a general mechanism rather than a task-specific hack.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 0.029% FLOPs figure assumes the attention cost of concatenating condition tokens is negligible; if the condition token sequence is even a few hundred tokens per block, the added attention FLOPs would be larger than reported unless the condition tokens are heavily downsampled or shared. A public profiling run would settle this.
  • The KV-context idea could be applied to other multimodal transformers, including text-to-video and autoregressive image models, wherever conditioning must be injected without retraining the backbone; a testable extension is whether the same injection works for misaligned conditions like object references, which the paper leaves open.
  • Because the side branch is independent of the backbone, it may be possible to train one control module on a stronger base model and transfer it directly to a fine-tuned variant; the paper's LoRA-composition result hints at this but does not test cross-version transfer.
  • The comparison against SD1.5/SDXL ControlNet baselines shows the method can outperform UNet-era controllers, but those baselines are not DiT; isolating the KV-context mechanism from the backbone choice would require a same-backbone ControlNet baseline trained on the same data.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes NanoControl, a control mechanism for diffusion transformers (specifically FLUX.1-dev) that avoids duplicating the backbone. Instead of a full ControlNet-style copy, it uses a LoRA-style side branch that produces condition-specific key/value representations, and a KV-Context Augmentation mechanism that concatenates these keys/values to the backbone attention in every MM-DiT block. The authors claim state-of-the-art controllability and image quality on Canny, Depth, Colorization, and HED tasks while adding only 0.024% parameters and 0.029% GFLOPs. Extensive benchmark tables and ablations are provided, including comparisons with several Flux-based control models and SD-based ControlNet variants.

Significance. If the reported efficiency were correct, NanoControl would be a significant contribution: it offers a plausible, lightweight alternative to ControlNet-style duplication for DiT backbones, and the KV-context augmentation idea is well motivated by the goal of injecting control information without passing it through the full backbone. The ablation studies (Tables 3a-c) provide useful evidence that the design choices matter, particularly the comparison between KV-context concatenation and additive injection. However, the central efficiency claim is a load-bearing part of the paper, and it is not supported by the manuscript as written. The paper also lacks code, profiling data, and statistical rigor for its benchmark comparisons. The qualitative and quantitative results are suggestive, but the SOTA and efficiency claims require substantial verification.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model Efficiency Analysis / Table 2, with Methods (KV-Context Augmentation Mechanism)] The reported +3 GFLOPs (0.029%) at 512 resolution is inconsistent with the architecture described in the Methods. The KV-Context Augmentation concatenates condition-specific keys and values to the backbone K/V sequence in every MM-DiT block, while Q remains the original text+image tokens. At 512x512, the Flux VAE latent is at least 64x64; after patchification this gives C >= 1024 condition tokens. With N+M ~ 1280, d = 3072, and roughly 57 blocks, the added attention FLOPs are approximately 2*(N+M)*C*d*blocks ~ 4.6e14 = 460 GFLOPs, i.e. ~4.6% of the 9,926 GFLOPs baseline, not +3 G. The paper gives no FLOPs derivation, no profiling, and no released code that could justify the table. As it stands, Table 2 appears to count only the LoRA projection branch and to omit the attention overhead. This is an internal inconsistency between the architecture description and the central efficiency claim
  2. [Experimental Setup / Table 1] All quantitative results are single-seed point estimates. The Implementation Details state that 'the random seed is fixed to 42', and no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. Given that diffusion sampling is stochastic and that FID/MUSIQ/HDD are computed on finite sample sets, the claimed improvements (e.g., Canny HDD 102.22 vs. 104.28) could be within noise. The paper needs either multiple seeds with variance reporting or other statistical evidence to support the 'state-of-the-art' claim. The evaluation protocol for FID is also incompletely described (which reference set is used, how many generated samples).
minor comments (5)
  1. [References and notation] The method by Tan et al. is referred to as 'OminiControl' throughout; the reference list reports 'OminiControl'. If the correct name is OminiControl, the spelling should be consistent. Also, 'DIT' and 'MMDIT' are used in a few places where 'DiT' and 'MM-DiT' would be consistent.
  2. [Ablation Study (Table 3)] Table 3 reports HDD, FID, and CLIP-I values but does not state which task (Canny?), which dataset split, or which resolution was used. Adding these details would make the ablations reproducible and easier to interpret.
  3. [Conclusion] The paper explicitly notes that only spatially aligned tasks were tested and that spatially misaligned tasks remain open. This is an honest limitation, but it should be highlighted in the abstract or introduction, as it directly bears on the claimed generality of the method.
  4. [Quantitative comparisons] Several baselines (Shakker-Union, Xlab-Controlnet-v3, community LoRA models) are community checkpoints rather than official releases. Their training data, hyperparameters, and inference settings are not specified. The comparisons would be stronger if official baselines or clearly documented open reproductions were used, or if at least the checkpoint versions and sampling settings were reported.
  5. [Figure 1] Figure 1's axes and circle-size legend should be self-contained; currently the reader must infer units from Table 2. Adding explicit axis labels and a legend would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims are empirical benchmark results and architectural ablations; no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

NanoControl is an empirical architecture paper. Its central claims are (1) state-of-the-art controllability/quality measured on COCO against external baselines (InstantX, Shakker, Xlab, OminiControl, ControlNet variants), and (2) extremely low parameter/FLOP overhead. The KV-Context Augmentation mechanism is a novel architectural design whose merit is показано via an ablation against additive injection (Table 3c); the improvement is empirical, not definitional. The efficiency numbers in Table 2 are asserted, not derived from any fitted constant. The apparent inconsistency between the attention overhead implied by the architecture description and the tiny reported FLOP increment is a correctness/accounting concern, not a circular reduction: no equation maps inputs to a prediction that is equivalent by construction. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing: RelaCtrl (Cao et al. 2025) is cited alongside Huttenlocher for the HDD metric, a standard external measure; OminiControl (Tan et al. 2024) is cited for the dataset and as a baseline. The conclusion's acknowledged limitation (only spatially aligned tasks evaluated) does not introduce circularity. Hard-rule 1 is not satisfied: no passage shows a quantity reducing to another by construction. The paper remains self-contained against external benchmarks, so a score of 0 is appropriate.

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

The central claim depends on a frozen pretrained model and standard hyperparameters; no new physical entities or conserved quantities are introduced. The main free parameters are LoRA ranks chosen by ablation.

free parameters (3)
  • Control module LoRA rank = 4
    Selected via ablation table 3(a) as a trade-off; performance improves with rank but gains saturate.
  • Image projection MLP LoRA rank = 32
    Selected via ablation table 3(b); performance drops below rank 16.
  • Guidance scale and sampling steps = 3.5, 24 steps
    Fixed at inference; common choices but affect quality metrics.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Flux.1 dev MM-DiT architecture supports extra condition tokens in K/V without retraining the base model
    The design relies on the pretrained attention operating correctly with extended key/value sequences (Section 'KV-Context Augmentation Mechanism').
  • domain assumption VAE encoding of the control image is nearly lossless and preserves needed spatial information
    Used to map control images to latent tokens; the paper asserts near-losslessness without measuring it (Section 'Model').
  • domain assumption Evaluation metrics (HDD, MSE, CLIP, FID) faithfully capture controllability and quality
    Metrics are standard but all are imperfect; no user study is included (Section 'Evaluation Metrics').

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NanoControl: A Lightweight Framework for Precise and Efficient Control in Diffusion Transformer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NX2Z7H2U

@misc{pith2026250810424,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NanoControl: A Lightweight Framework for Precise and Efficient Control in Diffusion Transformer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NX2Z7H2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10424}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in text-to-image synthesis. However, in the domain of controllable text-to-image generation using DiTs, most existing methods still rely on the ControlNet paradigm originally designed for UNet-based diffusion models. This paradigm introduces significant parameter overhead and increased computational costs. To address these challenges, we propose the Nano Control Diffusion Transformer (NanoControl), which employs Flux as the backbone network. Our model achieves state-of-the-art controllable text-to-image generation performance while incurring only a 0.024\% increase in parameter count and a 0.029\% increase in GFLOPs, thus enabling highly efficient controllable generation. Specifically, rather than duplicating the DiT backbone for control, we design a LoRA-style (low-rank adaptation) control module that directly learns control signals from raw conditioning inputs. Furthermore, we introduce a KV-Context Augmentation mechanism that integrates condition-specific key-value information into the backbone in a simple yet highly effective manner, facilitating deep fusion of conditional features. Extensive benchmark experiments demonstrate that NanoControl significantly reduces computational overhead compared to conventional control approaches, while maintaining superior generation quality and achieving improved controllability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10424 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of HDD Score versus FLOPs incre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall framework of NanoControl and comparison with ControlNet. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison with other models under four tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: More visualized results on the four tasks, where the top two rows show the results at 512 resolution and the bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Cao, K.; Wang, J.; Ma, A.; Feng, J.; Zhang, Z.; He, X.; Liu, S.; Cheng, B.; Leng, D.; Yin, Y.; and Zhang, J. 2025. RelaCtrl: Relevance-Guided Efficient Control for Diffusion Transformers. ArXiv, abs/2502.14377

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Chen, J.; Wu, Y.; Luo, S.; Xie, E.; Paul, S.; Luo, P.; Zhao, H.; and Li, Z. 2024. Pixart- \ delta \ : Fast and controllable image generation with latent consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05252

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    T.; Luo, P.; Lu, H.; and Li, Z

    Chen, J.; Yu, J.; Ge, C.; Yao, L.; Xie, E.; Wu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Kwok, J. T.; Luo, P.; Lu, H.; and Li, Z. 2023. PixArt- : Fast Training of Diffusion Transformer for Photorealistic Text-to-Image Synthesis. ArXiv, abs/2310.00426

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Heusel, M.; Ramsauer, H.; Unterthiner, T.; Nessler, B.; and Hochreiter, S. 2017. GANs Trained by a Two Time-Scale Update Rule Converge to a Local Nash Equilibrium. In Neural Information Processing Systems

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 6840--6851

    2020

  8. [8]

    E.; Shen, Y.; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; and Chen, W

    Hu, J. E.; Shen, Y.; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; and Chen, W. 2021. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. ArXiv, abs/2106.09685

    arXiv 2021

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    P.; Klanderman, G

    Huttenlocher, D. P.; Klanderman, G. A.; and Rucklidge, W. 1993. Comparing Images Using the Hausdorff Distance. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 15: 850--863

    1993

  2. [10]

    InstantX. 2024. FLUX.1-dev-Controlnet-Union

    2024

  3. [11]

    Ke, J.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Milanfar, P.; and Yang, F. 2021. MUSIQ: Multi-scale Image Quality Transformer. 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 5128--5137

    2021

  4. [12]

    Labs, B. F. 2024. FLUX. https://github.com/black-forest-labs/flux

    2024

  5. [13]

    Li, D.; Li, J.; and Hoi, S. C. H. 2023. BLIP-Diffusion: Pre-trained Subject Representation for Controllable Text-to-Image Generation and Editing. ArXiv, abs/2305.14720

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Li, Z.; Cheng, T.; Chen, S.; Sun, P.; Shen, H.; Ran, L.; Chen, X.; Liu, W.; and Wang, X. 2024. ControlAR: Controllable Image Generation with Autoregressive Models. ArXiv, abs/2410.02705

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    T.; Ben-Hamu, H.; Nickel, M.; and Le, M

    Lipman, Y.; Chen, R. T.; Ben-Hamu, H.; Nickel, M.; and Le, M. 2022. Flow matching for generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    I.; and Regier, J

    Lopez, R.; Boyeau, P.; Yosef, N.; Jordan, M. I.; and Regier, J. 2020. AUTO-ENCODING VARIATIONAL BAYES

    2020

  9. [17]

    Mao, C.; Zhang, J.; Pan, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Han, Z.; Liu, Y.; and Zhou, J. 2025. Ace++: Instruction-based image creation and editing via context-aware content filling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02487

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mou, C.; Wang, X.; Xie, L.; Zhang, J.; Qi, Z.; Shan, Y.; and Qie, X. 2023. T2I-Adapter: Learning Adapters to Dig out More Controllable Ability for Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2023

  11. [19]

    Peebles, W.; and Xie, S. 2023. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 4195--4205

    2023

  12. [20]

    S.; and Xie, S

    Peebles, W. S.; and Xie, S. 2022. Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformers. 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 4172--4182

    2022

  13. [21]

    Peng, B.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, W.; Yang, M.; and Jia, J. 2024. ControlNeXt: Powerful and Efficient Control for Image and Video Generation. ArXiv, abs/2408.06070

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Podell, D.; English, Z.; Lacey, K.; Blattmann, A.; Dockhorn, T.; M \"u ller, J.; Penna, J.; and Rombach, R. 2023. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; Krueger, G.; and Sutskever, I

    Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; Krueger, G.; and Sutskever, I. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2021

  16. [24]

    Raffel, C.; Shazeer, N.; Roberts, A.; Lee, K.; Narang, S.; Matena, M.; Zhou, Y.; Li, W.; and Liu, P. J. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research, 21(140): 1--67

    2020

  17. [25]

    Ramesh, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Nichol, A.; Chu, C.; and Chen, M. 2022. Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents. ArXiv, abs/2204.06125

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2021. High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models. 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 10674--10685

    2021

  19. [27]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10684--10695

    2022

  20. [28]

    Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; and Brox, T. 2015. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention--MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part II...

    2015

  21. [29]

    L.; Ghasemipour, K.; Gontijo Lopes, R.; Karagol Ayan, B.; Salimans, T.; et al

    Saharia, C.; Chan, W.; Saxena, S.; Li, L.; Whang, J.; Denton, E. L.; Ghasemipour, K.; Gontijo Lopes, R.; Karagol Ayan, B.; Salimans, T.; et al. 2022. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information processing syste...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Shakker-Labs. 2025. FLUX.1-dev-ControlNet-Union-Pro

    2025

  23. [31]

    P.; Kumar, A.; Ermon, S.; and Poole, B

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

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Tan, Z.; Liu, S.; Yang, X.; Xue, Q.; and Wang, X. 2024. OminiControl: Minimal and Universal Control for Diffusion Transformer. ArXiv, abs/2411.15098

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  26. [34]

    XLabs-AI. 2023. flux-controlnet-collections

    2023

  27. [35]

    Ye, H.; Zhang, J.; Liu, S.; Han, X.; and Yang, W. 2023. IP-Adapter: Text Compatible Image Prompt Adapter for Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. ArXiv, abs/2308.06721

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Zhang, L.; Rao, A.; and Agrawala, M. 2023. Adding Conditional Control to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 3813--3824

    2023

  29. [37]

    Zhao, S.; Chen, D.; Chen, Y.-C.; Bao, J.; Hao, S.; Yuan, L.; and Wong, K.-Y. K. 2023. Uni-ControlNet: All-in-One Control to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. ArXiv, abs/2305.16322

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.