Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Generative Image Layer Decomposition with Visual Effects

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a diffusion transformer trained with a consistency loss can decompose any masked image into a photorealistic clean background and a transparent foreground that keeps shadows and reflections, enabling direct object…

desk verdict A solid, useful layer-decomposition paper whose foreground-effect claims outrun the evaluation; worth refereeing, but the authors should be pushed to release data/code and directly evaluate the foreground layer. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17864 v1 pith:PJZCRH5I submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CV

Jinrui Yang , Qing Liu , Yijun Li , Soo Ye Kim , Daniil Pakhomov , Mengwei Ren , Jianming Zhang , Zhe Lin
show 2 more authors
Cihang Xie Yuyin Zhou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords layerdecompositionvisualeffectstransparentforegroundRGBAlayersconsistencylossobjectremovalspatialeditingdiffusiontransformer
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 proposes LayerDecomp, a generative framework that takes an image and an object mask and splits it into two editable layers: a clean background without the object, and a transparent foreground that carries the object together with its visual effects such as shadows and reflections. The authors' central claim is that this decomposition can be learned from a mix of synthetic triplets and real camera-captured before/after pairs, provided the model is trained with a consistency loss that forces the two predicted layers to re-blend into the original input. If correct, common editing operations such as object removal, moving, and resizing become simple layer manipulations that do not require fine-tuning and do not lose the grounding effects that make composites look real. The practical payoff is that users can edit the foreground independently and still recompose a coherent image.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the consistency loss of Eq. (3): predicted background and foreground latents are reparameterized to clean estimates, decoded through RGB and RGBA decoders, alpha-blended, and compared pixel-wise to the input composite; this is what supervises transparent foregrounds when no foreground ground truth exists. The supporting machinery is a diffusion transformer with per-image type embeddings that denoises both layer latents jointly, an RGBA variational autoencoder adapted from the base autoencoder, and a synthetic data pipeline that builds object assets with synthesized shadows and blends them onto random backgrounds.

What would settle it

Run the model on a set of real composite/background pairs and check whether the predicted foreground, placed on a neutral gray background, reproduces the shadow or reflection at the correct location and opacity; if the background layer retains any of the shadow or the foreground carries background texture, the consistency loss has not achieved a correct visual-effect split.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that layer decomposition with visual effects can be treated as joint diffusion denoising of two latents: a background latent in RGB and a foreground latent in RGBA, conditioned on the composite image and object mask, with alpha blending as the reconstruction interface. Because real-world foreground ground truth is unavailable, the method adds a pixel-space consistency loss: at each denoising step the predicted layers are decoded, alpha-blended, and compared with the input composite, so visual effects are pushed into the foreground layer rather than hallucinated or lost. The paper reports that adding an RGBA foreground output, visual-effect-aware synthetic training, and the consistency loss progressively improves background quality and recomposition fidelity, and that the resulting model outperforms existing inpainting and spatial-editing systems on object removal and spatial editing benchmarks and user studies.

Load-bearing premise

For real camera-captured pairs there is no foreground ground truth, so the foreground is supervised only by re-blending to the input; because many different splits re-blend identically, the model must rely on its pretrained prior to decide that shadows and reflections belong to the foreground rather than the background.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Object removal no longer requires loose masks or inpainting; tight masks suffice because shadows and reflections are assigned to the foreground layer instead of being regenerated in place.
  • Spatial edits such as moving and resizing carry the visual effects along with the object, so recomposited scenes stay physically plausible without extra shadow modeling.
  • Multiple objects can be decomposed sequentially into separate layers, allowing each object to be edited independently and then recombined coherently.
  • Downstream composition is a simple alpha-blending operation, so no model fine-tuning is needed at editing time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because alpha blending is not injective, the training objective cannot by itself pick a unique decomposition; the split quality must come from the pretrained diffusion prior, which makes the distribution of synthetic effects and the quality of the input mask load-bearing for generalization.
  • The same two-layer scheme could plausibly extend to other semi-transparent effects such as smoke, mist, or wet-floor reflections if reliable paired data or simulators for those effects become available.
  • A direct way to stress-test the claim is to decompose images where the shadow is visually ambiguous (for example, soft or detached shadows) and check whether the foreground layer still carries the effect rather than leaving it in the background.
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. LayerDecomp is a generative framework that takes a composite image and a binary object mask as input and outputs two layers: a clean background and a transparent foreground (RGBA) that is intended to retain visual effects such as shadows and reflections. The method is built on a 5B-parameter Diffusion Transformer, uses an RGBA-VAE adopted from LayerDiffusion, and is trained on a hybrid dataset: large-scale simulated triplets (background, foreground, composite) plus a smaller set of camera-captured background/composite pairs. To supervise the foreground when ground-truth annotations are unavailable, the paper introduces a pixel-space consistency loss between the original composite and the alpha-blended re-composite of the two predicted layers. The method is evaluated on object removal (RORD, MULAN, DESOBAv2, Emu-Edit) and spatial editing (moving/resizing), with ablations and two user studies.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a practically valuable advance: it would enable training-free, layer-wise editing with shadows and reflections preserved in the foreground, going beyond prior inpainting-based removal and text-driven editing. The empirical effort is substantial: three public benchmarks, two user studies, ablation experiments, a proposed data pipeline for simulated triplets, and the use of a large pretrained DiT backbone. The paper is generally clear and the proposed dataset construction is a reasonable way to address the scarcity of multi-layer data. However, the key novelty claim — faithful preservation of visual effects in the foreground layer — is not directly supported for real camera-captured images, and the training objective leaves the layer split underdetermined. These gaps are load-bearing for the main claim and need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Table 1 and Supp. Table 5] The training objective for camera-captured data does not uniquely determine the decomposition. As stated in Sec. 3.1, when the ground-truth foreground is absent, the diffusion loss is masked out on the foreground, so the only supervision for the foreground is the consistency loss Lconsist in Eq. (3). Because alpha blending is not injective, for a fixed composite and a predicted background there are infinitely many (alpha, color) foregrounds that reproduce the composite; the background diffusion loss removes only the most degenerate splits (e.g., fully transparent foreground) but does not force a soft shadow or reflection to be assigned to the foreground rather than retained in the background. The paper neither states nor tests this assumption, although it is essential for the claim that visual effects are faithfully preserved in the foreground. A direct evaluation of the predicted foreground against ground-truth RGBA on simulated data with visual effects, or a controlled sensitivity test that shifts the ground-truth effect allocation, would substantiate the claim.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Table 1 and Supp. Table 5] The only quantitative evaluation of the foreground layer is through re-composition: the Comp columns in Table 1 and the random re-composition FID/CLIP-FID in Supp. Table 5. These metrics are essentially the training objective of Lconsist, so it is expected that adding Lconsist improves them; they do not demonstrate that shadows or reflections are correctly allocated to the foreground. The paper should compare the predicted foreground (alpha and color) against ground-truth foreground layers on the simulated test set, or use a metric that penalizes wrong effect allocation (e.g., masked foreground PSNR/LPIPS computed on the effect region). Without such a direct evaluation, the central claim of faithful visual-effect preservation is not supported by the quantitative results.
  3. [Tables 1–6] No error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests are reported for any quantitative result. Several metrics are computed on relatively small sets (635 images for Table 1, 1,029 for the RORD subset, 1,000 for the MULAN subset, 750 for DESOBAv2, and 60 images for the Table 3 user study). FID and CLIP-FID are known to have high variance on such sample sizes, and the reported differences between methods are often only a few points (e.g., FID 21.77 vs. 39.48 in Table 2). The reader cannot determine whether these differences are meaningful. Please report standard deviations or bootstrap confidence intervals, and indicate whether user-study preferences are statistically significant (e.g., with a paired test).
  4. [Reproducibility] The paper does not release code, data, or a link to either; the project page is mentioned but the manuscript contains no URL or repository. Given that the method's key advantage rests on a new training dataset and the consistency-loss formulation, independent verification is currently not possible. In addition, the shadow synthesis in the data pipeline relies on an under-review method (Ref. [40], 'MetaShadow'), whose details are not provided. The authors should at least state the data availability plan and describe the shadow synthesis pipeline in enough detail to be reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] The notation for image variables is inconsistent: both IRGBcomp and IRGB_comp appear; please standardize the subscript/superscript placement.
  2. [Table 2] In Table 2, the 'Ours' row reports both L and T results, but it is unclear whether these come from the same model with different mask inputs or from two variants of the method; please clarify.
  3. [Figure 3] In Figure 3 and other figures, abbreviations such as 'CNI', 'SDI', 'PP' are used without definition in the captions; please define them or refer to the table where they are defined.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) uses an L1 norm; please state explicitly whether it is a mean absolute error over pixels and channels, and specify how the alpha-blending A is defined with respect to the RGBA representation.
  5. [Figure 2] Figure 2's caption contains a typo: 'refelctions' should be 'reflections'.
  6. [Tables 3–4] In the user-study tables, the reported percentages for 'Ours' are very high (e.g., 83.54% overall), but the tie option is not shown in the table; please report the tie percentages and the exact number of participants and trials per condition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the consistency loss is a training objective evaluated on held-out data, and the main downstream claims are benchmarked against external datasets and user studies.

full rationale

LayerDecomp's derivation chain is an empirical training pipeline, not a closed-form reduction. The key supervisory term, the consistency loss of Eq. (3), enforces that the alpha-blended re-composite of the predicted background and foreground matches the input composite image. Reporting 'Comp' metrics on the held-out set (Tables 1 and 5) does evaluate a quantity closely related to this objective, but this is a standard held-out evaluation of the trained model, not a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The model could fail to reconstruct held-out composites, and the reported gains are therefore not forced by construction. The central object-removal and spatial-editing claims are tested against external benchmarks (RORD, MULAN, DESOBAv2, Emu-Edit Remove Set) and multiple user studies, which are independent of the training loss and of any fitted value. The background layer is supervised by ground-truth images on both simulated and camera-captured data, and the foreground on camera-captured data is supervised only by the consistency loss. This is a real identifiability limitation, because alpha blending is non-injective and the loss does not uniquely determine how visual effects are split between layers, but that is an underdetermination/robustness concern rather than circular reasoning: the consistency loss is an objective, not a derived conclusion, and the paper does not claim the loss mathematically forces the visual effects into the foreground. The RGBA-VAE is adopted from LayerDiffusion, an external method, and the few self-citations (e.g., HQ-Edit [14], Magick [6], object-level scene deocclusion [22]) are contextual observations, not load-bearing premises that reduce the central claim to an author-supplied assumption. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is subsequently presented as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is an empirical system built on a pretrained 5B DiT and a prior RGBA-VAE; it introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on several domain assumptions: alpha blending captures visual effects, synthetic shadows transfer to real scenes, and the generative prior resolves the underdetermined layer split. The main undisclosed design choice is the consistency loss weight, and the main evaluation choice is the mask dilation used for baselines.

free parameters (3)
  • Consistency loss balancing weight = not reported
    Eq. (3) is added to the diffusion loss Ldm, but the implementation section gives no coefficient. If the weight was tuned, the tuning is undisclosed and could affect the reported balance between background quality and foreground transparency.
  • Mask dilation for MULAN and DESOBAv2 baselines = 10 pixels
    Supplementary Section 7 states loose masks are dilated by 10 pixels for competing inpainting methods. This hand-chosen value changes the inpainted region and affects the benchmark comparison.
  • Random recomposition ranges for foreground evaluation = deltaX, deltaY in [-0.3, 0.3]; scale in [0.5, 1.5]
    Supplementary Section 6 uses these hand-picked ranges to evaluate foreground fidelity after random moves and resizes. Results are relative across variants but the ranges are arbitrary.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Alpha blending between a single RGBA foreground and an RGB background is a sufficient composition model for shadows and reflections.
    The consistency loss in Eq. (3) and the network outputs presuppose that visual effects can be encoded as transparency in one RGBA layer over the background.
  • domain assumption Synthetic triplets with synthesized shadows transfer to real-world shadows and reflections.
    Section 3.3 builds the large-scale training set from objects on white backgrounds with synthesized shadows; the paper states composites may lack full realism but assumes the model still learns correct layer representations.
  • domain assumption The pretrained DiT prior and object mask resolve the inherent ambiguity of layer decomposition when foreground ground truth is missing.
    For camera-captured data without foreground annotations, Eq. (3) alone is satisfied by many decompositions; the method silently relies on the generative prior to place object and effects in the foreground.
  • domain assumption The RGBA-VAE fine-tuned from the DiT VAE preserves enough transparency information for foreground reconstruction.
    Section 3.1 adopts the LayerDiffusion approach to RGBA encoding without reporting an independent evaluation of alpha fidelity.
  • domain assumption FID, PSNR, LPIPS, CLIP-FID, and the two user studies measure the quality that the central claim is about.
    Section 4 uses these metrics on a 635-image held-out set and external benchmarks; their sensitivity to sample size and rater selection is not discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generative Image Layer Decomposition with Visual Effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PJZCRH5I

@misc{pith2026241117864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generative Image Layer Decomposition with Visual Effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PJZCRH5I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17864}
}
abstract

Recent advancements in large generative models, particularly diffusion-based methods, have significantly enhanced the capabilities of image editing. However, achieving precise control over image composition tasks remains a challenge. Layered representations, which allow for independent editing of image components, are essential for user-driven content creation, yet existing approaches often struggle to decompose image into plausible layers with accurately retained transparent visual effects such as shadows and reflections. We propose $\textbf{LayerDecomp}$, a generative framework for image layer decomposition which outputs photorealistic clean backgrounds and high-quality transparent foregrounds with faithfully preserved visual effects. To enable effective training, we first introduce a dataset preparation pipeline that automatically scales up simulated multi-layer data with synthesized visual effects. To further enhance real-world applicability, we supplement this simulated dataset with camera-captured images containing natural visual effects. Additionally, we propose a consistency loss which enforces the model to learn accurate representations for the transparent foreground layer when ground-truth annotations are not available. Our method achieves superior quality in layer decomposition, outperforming existing approaches in object removal and spatial editing tasks across several benchmarks and multiple user studies, unlocking various creative possibilities for layer-wise image editing. The project page is https://rayjryang.github.io/LayerDecomp.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17864 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Given an input image and a binary object mask, our model is able to decompose the image into a clean background layer and a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of LAYERDECOMP. The model takes four inputs: two conditional inputs, including a composite image and an object mask, and two noisy latent representations of the background and foreground layers. During training, we use simulated image triplets alongside camera-captured background-composite image pairs. We also introduce a pixel-space consistency loss to ensure that natural visual effects such as shadow… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Object removal - comparison with mask-based methods. Our model, using tight input masks, generates more visually plausible results with fewer artifacts compared to ControlNet Inpainting [50], SD-XL Inpainting [33], and PowerPaint [55], which all require loose mask input. Besides, our model delivers coherent foreground layers and supports more advanced downstream editing tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Object removal - comparison with ObjectDrop [22]. Based on their released examples, our model demonstrates com￾parable quality in photorealistic object removal in the background layer, while decomposing the foreground with intact visual effects. removal task, comparing…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Object removal - comparison with instruction-driven methods. Combining with a text-based grounding method, our model can effectively remove target objects and preserve background integrity, while existing instruction-based editing methods, such as Emu￾Edit [36], MGIE […
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Object spatial editing. Our model enables precise object moving and resizing with seamless handling of visual effects, resulting in highly effective and realistic edits that preserve content identity. When applied to examples released by specific works, such as Diffu￾s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Multi-layer Decomposition and Creative layer-editing. By sequentially applying our model, we can decompose multiple foreground layers with distinct visual effects, which can then be used for further creative editing tasks. 2070 data points are collected. As shown in Ta…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of the real-world camera-captured image pairs used in our model training and ablation study. Images are captured by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of results generated by model variants presented in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Object removal - comparison with mask-based methods on the RORD dataset. Our model, using tight input masks, generates more visually plausible results with fewer artifacts compared to ControlNet Inpainting [50], SD-XL Inpainting [33], and Power￾Paint [55], which all r…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Object removal - comparison with mask-based methods on the MULAN dataset. Our model, using tight input masks, generates more visually plausible results with fewer artifacts compared to ControlNet Inpainting [50], SD-XL Inpainting [33], and Power￾Paint [55], which all …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Object removal - comparison with mask-based methods on the DESOBAv2 dataset. Our model, using tight input masks, generates more visually plausible results with fewer artifacts compared to ControlNet Inpainting [50], SD-XL Inpainting [33], and Power￾Paint [55], which a…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Object removal - more comparison with instruction-driven methods on Emu-Edit [36] removal set. Combining with a text-based grounding method, our model can effectively remove target objects and preserve background integrity, while existing instruction￾based editing met…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Additional image decomposition results of our model on public benchmarks and web images. These results demonstrate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. AlphaVAE: Unified End-to-End RGBA Image Reconstruction and Generation with Alpha-Aware Representation Learning

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A pretrained RGB VAE extended with a zero-initialized alpha channel and alpha-aware losses reconstructs RGBA images with substantially higher PSNR/SSIM than prior transparency methods, using much less training data.

  2. DiffDecompose: Layer-Wise Decomposition of Alpha-Composited Images via Diffusion Transformers

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DiffDecompose recovers foreground and background layers from alpha-composited images using in-context diffusion with position encoding cloning, trained and evaluated on a new six-task synthetic dataset.

  3. OmniEraser: Remove Objects and Their Effects in Images with Paired Video-Frame Data

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    OmniEraser removes objects along with their shadows and reflections by conditioning a FLUX diffusion model on separate object and background latents, trained on a 134,281-sample video-derived dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [40]

    Metashadow: Object-centered shadow detec- tion, removal, and synthesis

    under review. Metashadow: Object-centered shadow detec- tion, removal, and synthesis. In under review, 2024. 4

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Magic fixup: Stream- lining photo editing by watching dynamic videos

    Hadi Alzayer, Zhihao Xia, Xuaner Zhang, Eli Shechtman, Jia-Bin Huang, and Michael Gharbi. Magic fixup: Stream- lining photo editing by watching dynamic videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13044, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  3. [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 Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 18208–18218, 2022. 2

    2022

  4. [3]

    Improving image generation with better captions

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al. Improving image generation with better captions. Computer Science. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf, 2(3):8, 2023. 1

    2023

  5. [4]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09800, 2022. 2

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 1

    2023

  7. [6]

    Magick: A large-scale captioned dataset from matting generated images using chroma keying

    Ryan D Burgert, Brian L Price, Jason Kuen, Yijun Li, and Michael S Ryoo. Magick: A large-scale captioned dataset from matting generated images using chroma keying. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22595–22604, 2024. 3

    2024

  8. [7]

    Scaling recti- fied flow transformers 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, et al. Scaling recti- fied flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, 2024. 1

    2024

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Emu edit test set generations

    Facebook AI. Emu edit test set generations. https: //huggingface.co/datasets/facebook/emu_ edit _ test _ set _ generations, 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-20. 2

    2024

  2. [9]

    Guiding instruction-based im- age editing via multimodal large language models

    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. In In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR),

  3. [10]

    Photoswap: Personalized subject swapping in images

    Jing Gu, Yilin Wang, Nanxuan Zhao, Tsu-Jui Fu, Wei Xiong, Qing Liu, Zhifei Zhang, He Zhang, Jianming Zhang, Hyun- Joon Jung, et al. Photoswap: Personalized subject swapping in images. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. 2

    2024

  4. [11]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control

    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. 2

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017. 5

    2017

  6. [13]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 3

    2020

  7. [14]

    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. 2, 4

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Designedit: Multi- layered latent decomposition and fusion for unified & accu- rate image editing

    Yueru Jia, Yuhui Yuan, Aosong Cheng, Chuke Wang, Ji Li, Huizhu Jia, and Shanghang Zhang. Designedit: Multi- layered latent decomposition and fusion for unified & accu- rate image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14487, 2024. 1, 3, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Brushnet: A plug-and-play image inpaint- ing model with decomposed dual-branch diffusion

    Xuan Ju, Xian Liu, Xintao Wang, Yuxuan Bian, Ying Shan, and Qiang Xu. Brushnet: A plug-and-play image inpaint- ing model with decomposed dual-branch diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06976, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    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. 2

    2023

  11. [18]

    Instruc- tany2pix: Flexible visual editing via multimodal instruction following

    Shufan Li, Harkanwar Singh, and Aditya Grover. Instruc- tany2pix: Flexible visual editing via multimodal instruction following. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06738, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    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

  13. [20]

    Flow matching for generative mod- eling

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky TQ Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximil- ian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow matching for generative mod- eling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Desobav2: To- wards large-scale real-world dataset for shadow generation

    Qingyang Liu, Jianting Wang, and Li Niu. Desobav2: To- wards large-scale real-world dataset for shadow generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09972, 2023. 6, 2

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Object-level scene deocclusion

    Zhengzhe Liu, Qing Liu, Chirui Chang, Jianming Zhang, Daniil Pakhomov, Haitian Zheng, Zhe Lin, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Chi-Wing Fu. Object-level scene deocclusion. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–11, 2024. 3, 6

    2024

  16. [23]

    Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Andreas Lugmayr, Martin Danelljan, Andres Romero, Fisher Yu, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11461–11471, 2022. 2

    2022

  17. [24]

    9 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. 9 Hd-painter: high-resolution and prompt-faithful text-guided image inpainting with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14091, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

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

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jia- jun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Diffeditor: Boosting accuracy and flexibil- ity on diffusion-based image editing

    Chong Mou, Xintao Wang, Jiechong Song, Ying Shan, and Jian Zhang. Diffeditor: Boosting accuracy and flexibil- ity on diffusion-based image editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8488–8497, 2024. 3, 7, 8

    2024

  20. [27]

    Drag your gan: Interactive point-based manipulation on the generative image manifold

    Xingang Pan, Ayush Tewari, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, Lingjie Liu, Abhimitra Meka, and Christian Theobalt. Drag your gan: Interactive point-based manipulation on the generative image manifold. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Pro- ceedings, pages 1–11, 2023. 3

    2023

  21. [28]

    Diffusion handles enabling 3d edits for diffusion models by lifting ac- tivations to 3d

    Karran Pandey, Paul Guerrero, Matheus Gadelha, Yannick Hold-Geoffroy, Karan Singh, and Niloy J Mitra. Diffusion handles enabling 3d edits for diffusion models by lifting ac- tivations to 3d. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ,...

    2024

  22. [29]

    On aliased resizing and surprising subtleties in gan evaluation

    Gaurav Parmar, Richard Zhang, and Jun-Yan Zhu. On aliased resizing and surprising subtleties in gan evaluation. In CVPR, 2022. 5

    2022

  23. [30]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4195–4205,

  24. [31]

    Open world en- tity segmentation

    Lu Qi, Jason Kuen, Yi Wang, Jiuxiang Gu, Hengshuang Zhao, Philip Torr, Zhe Lin, and Jiaya Jia. Open world en- tity segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(7):8743–8756, 2022. 4

    2022

  25. [32]

    Alfie: Democratising rgba image generation with no $$$

    Fabio Quattrini, Vittorio Pippi, Silvia Cascianelli, and Rita Cucchiara. Alfie: Democratising rgba image generation with no $$$. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14826, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 1, 5, 6, 2, 4

    2022

  27. [34]

    Rord: A real-world object removal dataset

    Min-Cheol Sagong, Yoon-Jae Yeo, Seung-Won Jung, and Sung-Jea Ko. Rord: A real-world object removal dataset. In BMVC, page 542, 2022. 6, 1

    2022

  28. [35]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Worts- man, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in Neural In- f...

    2022

  29. [36]

    Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and gen- eration 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 gen- eration tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pa...

    2024

  30. [37]

    Object- stitch: Object compositing with diffusion model

    Yizhi Song, Zhifei Zhang, Zhe Lin, Scott Cohen, Brian Price, Jianming Zhang, Soo Ye Kim, and Daniel Aliaga. Object- stitch: Object compositing with diffusion model. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18310–18319, 2023. 2

    2023

  31. [38]

    Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions

    Roman Suvorov, Elizaveta Logacheva, Anton Mashikhin, Anastasia Remizova, Arsenii Ashukha, Aleksei Silvestrov, Naejin Kong, Harshith Goka, Kiwoong Park, and Victor Lempitsky. Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter...

    2022

  32. [39]

    Mulan: A multi layer anno- tated dataset for controllable text-to-image generation

    Petru-Daniel Tudosiu, Yongxin Yang, Shifeng Zhang, Fei Chen, Steven McDonagh, Gerasimos Lampouras, Ignacio Iacobacci, and Sarah Parisot. Mulan: A multi layer anno- tated dataset for controllable text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Objectdrop: Bootstrap- ping counterfactuals for photorealistic object removal and in- sertion

    Daniel Winter, Matan Cohen, Shlomi Fruchter, Yael Pritch, Alex Rav-Acha, and Yedid Hoshen. Objectdrop: Bootstrap- ping counterfactuals for photorealistic object removal and in- sertion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18818, 2024. 3, 4, 6

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Draganything: Motion control for any- thing using entity representation

    Weijia Wu, Zhuang Li, Yuchao Gu, Rui Zhao, Yefei He, David Junhao Zhang, Mike Zheng Shou, Yan Li, Tingting Gao, and Di Zhang. Draganything: Motion control for any- thing using entity representation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 331–348. Springer, 2024. 7, 8

    2024

  35. [43]

    Draganything: Motion control for any- thing using entity representation

    Weijia Wu, Zhuang Li, Yuchao Gu, Rui Zhao, Yefei He, David Junhao Zhang, Mike Zheng Shou, Yan Li, Tingting Gao, and Di Zhang. Draganything: Motion control for any- thing using entity representation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 331–348. Springer, 2025. 3

    2025

  36. [44]

    Omnigen: Unified image generation

    Shitao Xiao, Yueze Wang, Junjie Zhou, Huaying Yuan, Xin- grun Xing, Ruiran Yan, Shuting Wang, Tiejun Huang, and Zheng Liu. Omnigen: Unified image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11340, 2024. 2, 6, 7, 1

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Free-form image inpainting with gated convolution

    Jiahui Yu, Zhe Lin, Jimei Yang, Xiaohui Shen, Xin Lu, and Thomas S Huang. Free-form image inpainting with gated convolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4471–4480, 2019. 2

    2019

  38. [46]

    High-resolution image inpainting with iterative confidence feedback and guided upsampling

    Yu Zeng, Zhe Lin, Jimei Yang, Jianming Zhang, Eli Shecht- man, and Huchuan Lu. High-resolution image inpainting with iterative confidence feedback and guided upsampling. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Confer- ence, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Par...

    2020

  39. [47]

    Cr- fill: Generative image inpainting with auxiliary contextual reconstruction

    Yu Zeng, Zhe Lin, Huchuan Lu, and Vishal M Patel. Cr- fill: Generative image inpainting with auxiliary contextual reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF interna- tional conference on computer vision , pages 14164–14173,

  40. [48]

    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. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36, 2024. 2 10

    2024

  41. [49]

    Transparent image layer diffusion using latent transparency

    Lvmin Zhang and Maneesh Agrawala. Transparent image layer diffusion using latent transparency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17113, 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3836–3847, 2023. 2, 5, 6, 4

    2023

  43. [51]

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 5

    2018

  44. [52]

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

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05282, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Large scale image comple- tion via co-modulated generative adversarial networks

    Shengyu Zhao, Jonathan Cui, Yilun Sheng, Yue Dong, Xiao Liang, Eric I Chang, and Yan Xu. Large scale image comple- tion via co-modulated generative adversarial networks. InIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR),

  46. [54]

    Image inpainting with cascaded modulation gan and object-aware training

    Haitian Zheng, Zhe Lin, Jingwan Lu, Scott Cohen, Eli Shechtman, Connelly Barnes, Jianming Zhang, Ning Xu, Sohrab Amirghodsi, and Jiebo Luo. Image inpainting with cascaded modulation gan and object-aware training. In Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision , pages 277–296. Spr...

    2022

  47. [55]

    A task is worth one word: Learning with task prompts for high-quality versatile image inpainting

    Junhao Zhuang, Yanhong Zeng, Wenran Liu, Chun Yuan, and Kai Chen. A task is worth one word: Learning with task prompts for high-quality versatile image inpainting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03594, 2023. 2, 5, 6, 4 11 Generative Image Layer Decomposition with Visual Effects Sup...

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    The test set is a held-out subset of our camera-captured data consisting of 635 image pairs (com- posite image and background image)

    Additional Results for the Ablation Study Test Set Details. The test set is a held-out subset of our camera-captured data consisting of 635 image pairs (com- posite image and background image). To construct this dataset, we manually collected real-world examples com- prising p...

  49. [57]

    Here, we provide more details for the mask-based object removal benchmarks used to calculate the metrics presented in Table 2 of the main manuscript

    Additional Results for the Mask-Based Ob- ject Removal Experiment Benchmarks Details. Here, we provide more details for the mask-based object removal benchmarks used to calculate the metrics presented in Table 2 of the main manuscript. • RORD [34]: We randomly select 1,029 ima...

  50. [58]

    Additional Results for the Instruction- Driven Object Removal Experiment Qualitative Comparison. Fig. 13 presents additional com- parison results with instruction-driven methods on the ob- ject removal task on Emu-Edit Remove Set [8, 36]. Be- yond showcasing the superior objec...

  51. [59]

    14, we provide comprehensive visualiza- tion results from various data sources, including web im- ages, public datasets, and the held-out test set

    More Image Layer Decomposition Results from L AYER DECOMP As shown in Fig. 14, we provide comprehensive visualiza- tion results from various data sources, including web im- ages, public datasets, and the held-out test set. These results demonstrate that our model is robust acr...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.