E-MD3C: Taming Masked Diffusion Transformers for Efficient Zero-Shot Object Customization

Chang D. Yoo; Ji Woo Hong; Trung X. Pham; Xuran Zheng; Zhang Kang

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 14 references

E-MD3C: Taming Masked Diffusion Transformers for Efficient Zero-Shot Object Customization

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 468M masked diffusion transformer outperforms the 1720M U-Net AnyDoor on zero-shot try-on while running 2.5× faster.

desk verdict Useful efficiency result for object customization, but the metric-level win over AnyDoor rests on a training-data mismatch that the appendix reveals. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09164 v1 pith:QDTKEQAB submitted 2025-02-13 cs.CV cs.LG

Trung X. Pham , Zhang Kang , Ji Woo Hong , Xuran Zheng , Chang D. Yoo This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.LG

keywords zero-shotobjectcustomizationmaskeddiffusiontransformervirtualtry-onlatentconditionalimagegenerationefficientinferenceVITON-HDDINOv2conditioning

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 establish that zero-shot object customization—placing an object from one image into a new background or target region—can be done by a lightweight masked diffusion transformer instead of a heavy U-Net pipeline. It proposes E-MD3C, built from a transformer denoiser, a Conditions Collector that folds source, box, and hint features into one compact vector, and a masked-training branch that acts as a regularizer. On the VITON-HD virtual try-on benchmark, the paper reports that E-MD3C beats the AnyDoor baseline on FID, PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, and L1 while using 468M parameters, about 2.8 seconds, and 12 GB of memory, versus 1720M parameters, about 7 seconds, and 18 GB. A sympathetic reader would care because the result suggests transformer-based diffusion can make image customization practical on ordinary hardware without sacrificing quality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing components are three. DTDNet is a DiT-style masked diffusion transformer (24 layers, width 1024) that denoises VAE latents patchified at patch size 2. CCNet, the Conditions Collector Network, fuses the local source latent patches, DINOv2 CLS and patch tokens from source and hint images, and a masked-box feature into one vector $\mathbf{c} \in \mathbb{R}^{1024}$ via a 1×1 convolution, then modulates the transformer through AdaLN-Zero; this compact injection is what avoids concatenating full condition maps. DMDNet is the masking branch that randomly masks 30% of patch tokens and applies a side-interpolator self-attention module, with the mask loss added to the denoising loss and no masking at inference. The key design move is the disentangled conditions: the hint latent stays pixel-aligned with the noisy target in the denoising branch, while the other conditions go through the collector, which the paper argues preserves background alignment and speeds convergence.

What would settle it

Retrain AnyDoor on exactly E-MD3C's training subset, without LAION pretraining and without YouTubeVIS, UVO, or BURST, and measure FID, PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, and L1 at 50 DDIM steps on VITON-HD; if AnyDoor then matches or exceeds E-MD3C, the paper's superiority claim collapses. A second check is to train E-MD3C on the full AnyDoor dataset list and see whether the DINO score gap in object composition (0.4831 versus 0.4702) closes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

E-MD3C's central claim is that a masked diffusion transformer operating on latent patches is sufficient for zero-shot object customization, provided conditions are disentangled rather than all concatenated with the noisy target. The hint image's VAE latent is concatenated with the noisy target latent so the model only has to invent content inside the box; all remaining conditions—source image patches, DINOv2 global features, and a masked-box token—are compressed by the Conditions Collector into a single 1024-dimensional vector and injected through adaptive layer norm. A masking branch randomly hides 30% of patch tokens and uses a side-interpolator to predict them, regularizing the transformer during training and removed at inference. The paper reports consistent wins over AnyDoor on VITON-HD at 512 × 512 resolution across FID, PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, and L1, with one quarter of the parameters, 2.5× faster inference, and two-thirds the GPU memory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the comparison is fair: Table 1 says all methods were trained on the same data, but the appendix lists a smaller training set for E-MD3C and flags AnyDoor's additional LAION pretraining, so the reported metric gap may partly come from training data rather than architecture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A U-Net-based Stable Diffusion backbone is not required for competitive zero-shot try-on; a 468M transformer trained without external LAION data can outperform a 1720M U-Net on the VITON-HD test set.
The disentangled hint-latent branch makes conditional inpainting-style tasks easier to learn, because the model only needs to predict content inside the bounding box.
Masked token modeling contributes view consistency: on multi-view inputs, E-MD3C's cosine-similarity alignment across views stays high while plain DiT drifts.
The efficiency gains are tied to the same output quality: 50-step DDIM sampling at 512 × 512 takes about 2.8 seconds and 12 GB rather than about 7 seconds and 18 GB, making deployment on less powerful hardware plausible.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: Table 1's 'same data' claim is not fully supported by Appendix Table 5, which shows AnyDoor's training list included YouTubeVIS, UVO, and BURST and external LAION pretraining while E-MD3C used fewer datasets; if AnyDoor were retrained on the identical subset without LAION, some metric gaps might shrink or reverse.
Editorial inference: the compact collector plus transformer likely shifts part of the compute bottleneck to the frozen DINOv2 encoders, so measuring end-to-end latency including feature extraction would show how much of the 2.5× speedup survives in a production pipeline.
Editorial inference: the same architecture could be tested on more general object placement with ground-truth masks, where identity-preservation scores rather than try-on pixel metrics are the right yardstick; the paper's own object-composition table shows only a small DINO score deficit there, hinting the method may generalize beyond garments.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me cut to the chase. The paper's real contribution is efficiency: a 468M masked diffusion transformer that does zero-shot object customization at 2.5x lower latency and about two-thirds the GPU memory of AnyDoor's 1720M U-Net. Those numbers are measured on the same GPU, and the architecture differences explain them. That is a useful result for anyone deploying virtual try-on or object compositing on limited hardware.

What's new: the specific combination of a DiT-style denoising transformer with a masked side branch and a conditions collector that compresses multi-modal conditions into a single vector. The disentangled hinting—putting the hint latent in the denoising branch while other conditions go through the collector—is a sensible design for inpainting-like tasks. The ablations show each piece helps, and the masking regularizer has a plausible story.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader put it. Table 1 states all methods trained on the same data, but Appendix Table 5 shows E-MD3C skipped YouTubeVIS, UVO, and BURST, and the AnyDoor row carries an external-data checkmark for LAION pretraining. So the comparison does not isolate architecture. The metric gaps are small: FID 8.47 vs 8.55, PSNR 19.38 vs 19.24, SSIM 0.8106 vs 0.7992. Without error bars or multiple seeds, those deltas could shift under a matched retraining. The paper also releases no code or weights, so independent verification is currently impossible.

I don't think this sinks the paper. The efficiency claim is architecture-driven and measured, and the design is coherent. But the headline claim of outperforming AnyDoor on all five metrics is conditional on a properly controlled baseline. The authors should retrain AnyDoor on their exact training subset and report variance, or at least release their own weights so someone else can do it.

Verdict: worth a serious referee. The reviewer should focus on baseline fairness and ask for code and weights. This is not a desk reject—the task matters and the efficiency angle is real. I'd bring it to reading group as a case study in how easily fair-comparison tables drift when datasets are partially inherited.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes E-MD3C, a masked diffusion transformer framework for zero-shot object-level image customization. The architecture combines a DiT-based denoising network that operates on latent patches with a disentangled condition design: the hint-image latent is concatenated with the noisy target latent, while source-image, box, and hint features are compressed by a learnable Conditions Collector into a single vector used for adaptive layer-norm modulation. A masked-diffusion branch with a side-interpolator is used as a training regularizer. On VITON-HD, the model reports FID 8.47, PSNR 19.38, SSIM 0.8106, LPIPS 0.1625, and L1 4.92e-5 with 468M parameters, 2.8 s per image, and 12 GB GPU memory, compared with AnyDoor's 8.55 FID, 19.24 PSNR, 0.7992 SSIM, 0.1730 LPIPS, and 5.56e-5 L1 using 1720M parameters and 7.1 s. The paper also includes ablations on disentangled conditions, masking modeling, and efficiency, plus qualitative results for virtual try-on and object composition.

Significance. If the reported quality holds under a matched comparison, the paper makes a useful contribution: it demonstrates that a transformer-based masked diffusion model can replace a much larger U-Net pipeline for object customization while retaining quality and substantially reducing compute. The efficiency numbers are measured and reported with run-to-run variation, and the design is coherent with prior MDT-based work. The loss functions are standard diffusion and mask-prediction objectives, so the method is not circularly derived from its own target. The main limitation is that the empirical superiority claim rests on a comparison to AnyDoor that is not fully controlled with respect to training data and pretraining, which limits the strength of the current evidence.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.1, Table 1, Appendix Table 5] The caption of Table 1 states 'All methods are trained on the same data under a zero-shot object customization setting,' but Section 4.1 explains that E-MD3C used only a subset of AnyDoor's training datasets, and Appendix Table 5 marks YouTubeVIS, UVO, and BURST as used by AnyDoor but not by E-MD3C. The AnyDoor row also carries an External Data checkmark attributed to LAION pretraining. Since the reported quality margins are small (FID 8.47 vs 8.55; PSNR 19.38 vs 19.24; SSIM 0.8106 vs 0.7992; LPIPS 0.1625 vs 0.1730; L1 4.92e-5 vs 5.56e-5), the 'outperforms' claim in the abstract and in Table 1 could change if AnyDoor were retrained on the same subset with the same initialization. This is load-bearing for the paper's main empirical claim.
[Table 1 and Section 4.2] No quality metric in Table 1 is reported with error bars, multiple seeds, or a significance test. Given the small deltas, the paper should either provide such statistics or temper the claim from 'outperforms' to 'achieves comparable quality with substantially lower compute.' The efficiency comparison in Table 3 reports standard deviations and is adequate, but the quality comparison is not supported with the same rigor.
[Table 2 and Section 4.2] The composition results in Table 2 show E-MD3C slightly higher CLIP score (0.7322 vs 0.7306) but lower DINO score (0.4702 vs 0.4831) than AnyDoor. The paper attributes this to AnyDoor's broader training data, but for the same reason as the VITON-HD comparison, this does not isolate the architecture. The statement that the gap 'can be bridged with additional video training data' is speculative without a matched retraining or a data-ablation experiment.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and throughout] The abstract contains 'We proposeE-MD3C' with a missing space, and the text uses 'V AE' instead of 'VAE' in several places; these should be corrected.
[Figure 1] The y-axis label of Figure 1 is 'Memory Usage (MB)', but the values range from 0 to 17.5 and the text reports 12GB and 18GB, so the unit should be 'GB'.
[Table 4] Table 4 repeats the header 'Method Layers Dim. Heads Param. (M)' twice; the duplicate header row should be removed.
[Equation (3)] Equation (3) would be clearer if the masking operation applied to the input tokens were defined explicitly; the current notation ym could be misread as the noisy latent rather than the masked patch sequence.
[Figure 3] The caption of Figure 3 begins with 'CustomizedReal', which appears to be a formatting error from the two-column layout; the caption should be rewritten.
[Related Works] Several citations in the Related Works section, such as Ginesu et al. (2012) in the discussion of ZSOIC, appear unrelated to the sentence they support; please verify that each citation is appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported efficiencies and image-quality metrics are measured against an external baseline; self-citations merely point to published prior methods.

full rationale

E-MD3C's derivation chain is not circular. The training objectives (Eqs. 1, 3, and 6) are standard denoising and mask-prediction losses over the target latent y and noise epsilon; no fitted quantity is later relabeled as a prediction, and the model is not optimized on the VITON-HD test metrics it reports. The efficiency comparison (Tables 1 and 3) is a measured benchmark of parameters, memory, and inference time against AnyDoor, an external published baseline, rather than a quantity derived from the method's own assumptions. Citations to the authors' prior work (X-MDPT, Pham et al. 2024; MDSGen, Pham et al. 2025) are used as building blocks and design precedents; these are published, independently evaluable methods, and the central evaluation is against AnyDoor, so no load-bearing premise reduces to a self-citation. The one in-scope limitation--the caption of Table 1 claims 'All methods are trained on the same data under a zero-shot object customization setting,' while Appendix Table 5 lists YouTubeVIS, UVO, and BURST as used only by AnyDoor and the AnyDoor row is marked as using external data--is a real concern about whether the metric margins isolate architecture, but it is a correctness and fairness risk, not circularity: the numbers are still measured, not derived by construction. No step in the paper defines X in terms of Y, fits a parameter and then calls it a prediction, or imports uniqueness from the authors' own theorems.

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

The central claim rests primarily on measured benchmark numbers rather than on a mathematical derivation. It inherits standard diffusion and ViT assumptions, several hand-set hyperparameters from MDT, and assumes the VITON-HD comparison is controlled. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced beyond the trained CCNet module.

free parameters (4)

mask ratio = 30%
Randomly masks 30% of patchified latent tokens during training (Section 3.3), inherited from MDT; no ablation for this value is shown.
CFG schedule constants beta and gamma = beta = 2.0, gamma = 0.01
Dynamic classifier-free guidance power-cosine schedule (Eq. 8), taken from MDT defaults; hand-chosen, not fit to the target metric.
condition dropout probability eta = 10%
Probability of zeroing the condition vector during CFG training (Section 3.4); manual setting with no reported sweep.
joint loss weight lambda = 1
Weight balancing denoising and masked denoising losses in Eq. 6, set to 1 as MDT's default; no ablation is provided for this value.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Pretrained SD-VAE and DINOv2 encoders supply faithful latent and feature representations for appearance, identity, and background.
Used throughout Sections 3.1 and 3.2; the whole pipeline assumes these frozen features are sufficient for object transfer, with no analysis of their failure modes.
domain assumption Masked token modeling with a side-interpolator improves contextual learning and can be removed at inference without a distribution shift.
Invoked in Section 3.3 and Eq. 6, inherited from MDT and supported only by the paper's own ablation and prior work, not by formal analysis.
domain assumption VITON-HD test set is a representative zero-shot object customization benchmark even though the model was trained on VITON-HD data.
Table 1 and Appendix Table 5; 'zero-shot' here means no per-object optimization, not an unseen dataset or category, which weakens the generalization claim.
domain assumption The AnyDoor baseline numbers in Table 1 are produced under the same training data and evaluation protocol as E-MD3C.
Table 1's claim of same-data training is contradicted by Appendix Table 5's dataset subset and the External Data marker on AnyDoor; this is the paper's weakest dataset assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of E-MD3C: Taming Masked Diffusion Transformers for Efficient Zero-Shot Object Customization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QDTKEQAB

@misc{pith2026250209164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: E-MD3C: Taming Masked Diffusion Transformers for Efficient Zero-Shot Object Customization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QDTKEQAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09164}
}

abstract

We propose E-MD3C ($\underline{E}$fficient $\underline{M}$asked $\underline{D}$iffusion Transformer with Disentangled $\underline{C}$onditions and $\underline{C}$ompact $\underline{C}$ollector), a highly efficient framework for zero-shot object image customization. Unlike prior works reliant on resource-intensive Unet architectures, our approach employs lightweight masked diffusion transformers operating on latent patches, offering significantly improved computational efficiency. The framework integrates three core components: (1) an efficient masked diffusion transformer for processing autoencoder latents, (2) a disentangled condition design that ensures compactness while preserving background alignment and fine details, and (3) a learnable Conditions Collector that consolidates multiple inputs into a compact representation for efficient denoising and learning. E-MD3C outperforms the existing approach on the VITON-HD dataset across metrics such as PSNR, FID, SSIM, and LPIPS, demonstrating clear advantages in parameters, memory efficiency, and inference speed. With only $\frac{1}{4}$ of the parameters, our Transformer-based 468M model delivers $2.5\times$ faster inference and uses $\frac{2}{3}$ of the GPU memory compared to an 1720M Unet-based latent diffusion model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09164 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Existing Approach Inefficiency. The current model (black) demands significant parameters, memory, and inference time due to its resource-intensive architecture. 2022), DreamBooth (Ruiz et al., 2023), and UniCanvas (Jin et al., 2025) enable novel concept generation but lack spatial control and require extensive fine-tuning, limiting their real-world applicability. AnyDoor (Chen et al., 2024b) mitigates these issues… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Object Composition. The 3rd and 4th columns show outputs from the existing method and our model. Our model generates images in just over 2 seconds, compared to 7 seconds for the existing approach. Denoising Diffusion Transformers. The CNN-based UNet architecture (Ronneberger et al., 2015) has long been the foundational framework for diffusion models and remains a prevalent choice for various diffusion-based gener… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Zero-shot object customization and its practical applications. Images are generated using our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Overview of the E-MD3C framework for zero-shot object customization. During training, 30% of patched tokens are masked, and the noisy input is processed by the Diffusion Transformer, conditioned on a collected vector (D = 1024) via AdaLN modulation (Peebles & Xie, 2023…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Training data with diverse object sizes. In the pixel space (512×512), objects of varying sizes and positions train the model, with black areas marking masked objects in bounding boxes. In the latent space (64 × 64), box position is preserved. final target image y0. Ou…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Existing Design (Pham et al., 2024) vs. Ours. Our approach leverages the VAE latent of the hint image to guide noisy target generation, enabling efficient adaptation to visible information outside the boxed region. are resized to 224 × 224 to comply with DINO’s require…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Aggregation vs Disentangled Hinting. Images are generated by methods on the VITON-HD dataset. Differences are shown more clearly in the face and hand regions. It is best viewed with zoom in at least 200%. 3.4. Dynamic Classifier-Free Guidance We adopt dynamic classifi…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Generated images with different training steps. Adding DINO features of hint image showing a better convergence. It is best viewed with zoom in 200%. 468M parameter model achieves the same task in just 2.8 seconds while using only 12GB of memory. This significant redu…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Pixel Distribution. Compare generated images and ground truth (GT). Our method aligns more closely with the GT curve, while AnyDoor (Chen et al., 2024b) exhibits noticeable deviations. Best viewed at 200% zoom. 4.3.5. DISTRIBUTION STATISTIC To compare the behavior of …

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Object Composition. Compared existing work AnyDoor and ours E-MD3C (1). 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Object Composition. Compared existing work AnyDoor and ours E-MD3C (2). 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Object Composition. Compared existing work AnyDoor and ours E-MD3C (3). 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929,

arXiv 2010
[4]

Table 4: Parameters and Configs

For V AE, we used the V AE of Stable Diffusion (Rombach et al., 2022). Table 4: Parameters and Configs. We follow ViT (Dosovitskiy et al.,

work page 2022
[5]

and Salimans, T

Ho, J. and Salimans, T. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598,

arXiv
[6]

Quality-aware masked diffusion trans- former for enhanced music generation

Li, C., Wang, R., Liu, L., Du, J., Sun, Y ., Guo, Z., Zhang, Z., and Jiang, Y . Quality-aware masked diffusion trans- former for enhanced music generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15863,

arXiv
[7]

MDT-A2G: Exploring Masked Diffusion Transformers for Co-Speech Gesture Generation

Mao, X., Jiang, Z., Wang, Q., Fu, C., Zhang, J., Wu, J., Wang, Y ., Wang, C., Li, W., and Chi, M. Mdt-a2g: Explor- ing masked diffusion transformers for co-speech gesture generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03312,

work page Pith review arXiv
[8]

X., Sun, J., Zhu, Y ., Kweon, I

Niu, A., Zhang, K., Pham, T. X., Sun, J., Zhu, Y ., Kweon, I. S., and Zhang, Y . Cdpmsr: Conditional diffusion prob- abilistic models for single image super-resolution. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Image Process- ing (ICIP), pp. 615–619. IEEE,

work page 2023
[10]

Denoising diffusion implicit models

Song, J., Meng, C., and Ermon, S. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502,

arXiv 2010
[13]

Single Image 100,864 × High ✓ ✓ A.3. Self-Supervised Learning Models There are various SSL models have been explored to learn the representations without labels (He et al., 2022; Pham et al., 2021; 2023; Oquab et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022a;b). These models serve as a good extractor for various applications (Pham et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2024b). DIN...

work page 2022

Show all 14 references

[14]

We mainly use DINOv2, but the other options may be worth trying

demonstrated an excellent pre-trained model for various diffusion-based frameworks. We mainly use DINOv2, but the other options may be worth trying. With the potential of diffusion transformers for conditional learning, it is expected to have more discovery of its capability i...

2022
[2020]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for lan- guage understanding

Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for lan- guage understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805,

arXiv
[2022]

T., Rubinstein, M., et al

Chang, H., Zhang, H., Barber, J., Maschinot, A., Lezama, J., Jiang, L., Yang, M.-H., Murphy, K., Freeman, W. T., Rubinstein, M., et al. Muse: Text-to-image genera- tion via masked generative transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00704,

arXiv
[2023]

Pham, T., Zhang, C., Niu, A., Zhang, K., and Yoo, C. D. On the pros and cons of momentum encoder in self- supervised visual representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.05744, 2022a. Pham, T. X., Mina, R. J. L., Issa, D., and Yoo, C. D. Self- supervised learning with loc...

arXiv
[2024]

H., Chechik, G., and Cohen-Or, D

Gal, R., Alaluf, Y ., Atzmon, Y ., Patashnik, O., Bermano, A. H., Chechik, G., and Cohen-Or, D. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618,

arXiv
[2025]

Xu, N., Yang, L., Fan, Y ., Yue, D., Liang, Y ., Yang, J., and Huang, T

URL https:// openreview.net/forum?id=N8Oj1XhtYZ. Xu, N., Yang, L., Fan, Y ., Yue, D., Liang, Y ., Yang, J., and Huang, T. Youtube-vos: A large-scale video object seg- mentation benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.03327,

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929,

arXiv 2010

[2] [4]

Table 4: Parameters and Configs

For V AE, we used the V AE of Stable Diffusion (Rombach et al., 2022). Table 4: Parameters and Configs. We follow ViT (Dosovitskiy et al.,

work page 2022

[3] [5]

and Salimans, T

Ho, J. and Salimans, T. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598,

arXiv

[4] [6]

Quality-aware masked diffusion trans- former for enhanced music generation

Li, C., Wang, R., Liu, L., Du, J., Sun, Y ., Guo, Z., Zhang, Z., and Jiang, Y . Quality-aware masked diffusion trans- former for enhanced music generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15863,

arXiv

[5] [7]

MDT-A2G: Exploring Masked Diffusion Transformers for Co-Speech Gesture Generation

Mao, X., Jiang, Z., Wang, Q., Fu, C., Zhang, J., Wu, J., Wang, Y ., Wang, C., Li, W., and Chi, M. Mdt-a2g: Explor- ing masked diffusion transformers for co-speech gesture generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03312,

work page Pith review arXiv

[6] [8]

X., Sun, J., Zhu, Y ., Kweon, I

Niu, A., Zhang, K., Pham, T. X., Sun, J., Zhu, Y ., Kweon, I. S., and Zhang, Y . Cdpmsr: Conditional diffusion prob- abilistic models for single image super-resolution. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Image Process- ing (ICIP), pp. 615–619. IEEE,

work page 2023

[7] [10]

Denoising diffusion implicit models

Song, J., Meng, C., and Ermon, S. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502,

arXiv 2010

[8] [13]

Single Image 100,864 × High ✓ ✓ A.3. Self-Supervised Learning Models There are various SSL models have been explored to learn the representations without labels (He et al., 2022; Pham et al., 2021; 2023; Oquab et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022a;b). These models serve as a good extractor for various applications (Pham et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2024b). DIN...

work page 2022