Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Test-time Conditional Text-to-Image Synthesis Using Diffusion Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 TINTIN conditions Stable Diffusion outputs on color palettes and edge maps entirely at test time, with no retraining or extra modules.

desk verdict TINTIN's color-palette loss and Conditioning Zone analysis are genuinely novel and the color evidence looks credible, but the edge-control SOTA claim rests on a table with inverted metric arrows, and key hyperparameters are tuned on the evaluation set. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10800 v1 pith:R43EQKTS submitted 2024-11-16 cs.CV

Tripti Shukla , Srikrishna Karanam , Balaji Vasan Srinivasan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords test-timeconditioningdiffusionmodelstext-to-imagesynthesiscolorpalettesedgemapstraining-freeenergy-basedguidanceiterativesampling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that text-to-image diffusion models can be conditioned on additional inputs—color palettes and edge maps—without any retraining or extra modules, purely by adjusting noise predictions during denoising. It interprets those noise predictions as energy gradients and adds new losses that measure how well the current image matches the palette or the edge structure, then iteratively re-samples within a narrow window of timesteps. If this works, users could supply a reference palette or an edge sketch at inference time and have the base model follow it, and the same model could be steered by new condition types without ever needing a training run.

What carries the argument

The central object is the energy-gradient interpretation of noise predictions, combined with the Conditioning Zone and iterative resampling. The update rule is $x_{t-1} = r_t - \alpha_t \nabla_{x_t} E(c, x_t)$, where $r_t$ is the standard DDPM update and $E$ is an energy function measuring mismatch between the current latent and the condition $c$. For color, $E$ is a weighted sum of a LAB-space Euclidean loss and the color-distribution matching loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{DS}}$; for edge, $E$ is an IoU loss on thresholded edge maps. The Conditioning Zone specifies the timestep interval in which these gradients are applied (70 to 40 for color, 95 to 90 for edge), together with a repetition count per step, and the iterative sampling strategy moves back $q$ steps and resamples to tighten conditioning. This zone placement is what lets structure-level conditions act early and appearance-level conditions act mid-sampling.

What would settle it

Run TINTIN on a non-COCO benchmark with novel color palettes and edge maps while keeping the COCO-tuned zone and repetition counts fixed; if the color-distribution score or edge IoU drops sharply relative to COCO, the claimed general test-time conditioning fails. A more targeted test is to feed edge maps that are not natural-image edges, such as sketches or line drawings, and check whether the IoU loss still drives the structure toward the reference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TINTIN treats the diffusion sampler as an energy-guided process: the conditional score is the unconditional score plus a gradient that pushes the sample toward the desired condition. For color palettes, it decodes the noisy latent to RGB, maps both image and palette into LAB space, and combines a Euclidean loss on the LAB features with a new color-distribution matching loss that soft-assigns each pixel to the palette's nearest color and minimizes cross-entropy between the predicted and target distributions. For edge maps, it passes the decoded image through an off-the-shelf edge detector, thresholds the result, and applies an Intersection-over-Union loss against the reference edge map. Both loss gradients are applied only inside a Conditioning Zone—timesteps 70 to 40 with about 20 iterations per step for color, and 95 to 90 with about 50 iterations for edge—where each condition acts. On the COCO validation set the paper reports that TINTIN reaches a color-distribution score of 8.43, ahead of T2I-Adapter's 5.55, ControlNet's 3.23, and FreeDoM's 2.12, and an FID of 18.34 for edge conditioning, below T2I-Adapter's 19.73 and ControlNet's 20.65.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the empirically chosen Conditioning Zone boundaries and repetition counts—color at timesteps 70 to 40 with about 20 iterations per step, edges at 95 to 90 with about 50—transfer across prompts, domains, and conditions; they were tuned on COCO and then used to compute the reported COCO results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single base diffusion model can be steered by arbitrary color palettes at test time, the first reported capability of its kind without retraining.
  • Edge-map conditioning matches or beats training-dependent adapters on COCO metrics while keeping generation diversity.
  • New condition types, such as style, segmentation maps, or pose, become achievable by plugging in a suitable loss and a Conditioning Zone, with no training run.
  • Deployment becomes faster in wall-clock terms because the multi-day training phase is eliminated and inference time remains comparable to existing training-free methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Conditioning Zone pattern suggests a general heuristic: conditions that fix global structure act in the earliest denoising steps, conditions that fix appearance act mid-sampling; a new condition could be placed empirically by checking where its loss first responds.
  • The color-distribution loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{DS}}$ is a differentiable soft palette quantizer, so it could be reused for test-time recoloring or image harmonization beyond full image generation.
  • Because the zone boundaries and repetition counts were tuned on COCO, a self-terminating variant that stops iterating when the condition loss plateaus would be a natural robustness upgrade; without it, transfer to other domains is the main open risk.
  • If the energy-gradient view is correct, the same update rule should extend to other conditioning signals by swapping the distance network, a direction the paper mentions but does not test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TINTIN, a training-free, test-time method for conditioning text-to-image diffusion models on color palettes and edge maps. The method interprets denoising predictions as energy gradients (following FreeDoM), applies newly designed color-distribution and IoU losses during a chosen "Conditioning Zone" of the reverse process, and uses iterative resampling to strengthen adherence. Experiments on the COCO validation set compare against T2I-Adapter, ControlNet, PITI, MaGIC, MasaCtrl, and FreeDoM, reporting FID/CLIP/CDS for color and FID/CLIP/SSIM/MSE for edges, plus an ablation and user study.

Significance. The central formulation is standard in spirit: conditional sampling via an added energy-gradient term is grounded in Eq. (1)-(7), and the color loss LDS is a plausible, non-circular mechanism (the palette is user-specified, not fitted). If the quantitative claims survive correction, the paper would provide a useful training-free alternative for palette and edge control, with an ablation showing each loss component contributes. The paper is, however, currently weakened by an internally inconsistent edge-metric table and by validation-set hyperparameter selection, so the empirical state-of-the-art claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Table 2] Table 2 reports SSIM↓ and MSE↑, which are the reverse of standard conventions (and of Table 3's SSIM↑ and MSE↓). With the correct conventions, TINTIN's edge SSIM of 0.40 is lower than T2I-Adapter's 0.41 and ControlNet's 0.43, and its MSE of 0.19 is worse than ControlNet's 0.18. The text's statement that "our approach consistently outperforms others, except for MSE" is therefore unsupported, and the edge-control superiority claim must be re-derived from corrected numbers.
  2. [§3.2, §4] The Conditioning Zone and iteration counts (color 70-40 with ≈20 iterations; edge 95-90 with ≈50 iterations) are stated to have been "determined through rigorous experimentation on the COCO dataset," and the quantitative evaluation is then reported on the COCO validation set. Because these hyperparameters were selected on the same set used for the headline numbers, the performance claims are potentially optimistically biased. The paper should report results on a held-out split, or at least give standard deviations and a sensitivity analysis over these hyperparameters.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (12)] The edge objective is written as LIoU = A(ext ∩ erf)/A(ext ∪ erf), which is an IoU similarity to be maximized, not a loss to be minimized. If this quantity is used directly as the energy Dθ in the update of Eq. (7), gradient descent on it would reduce overlap rather than increase it. The paper should state explicitly whether the implemented loss is 1−IoU or whether the gradient sign is reversed, since edge conditioning is one of the two central demonstrations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables 1-3] Add standard deviations or confidence intervals to the reported scores; averages over seven seeds without any spread make it impossible to judge whether differences between methods are significant.
  2. [§1, Related Work] Clarify the relation to the cited Vavilala and Forsyth (2023) work: the paper cites it as inspiration for LDS yet also claims to be the first to condition on color palettes; a sentence distinguishing the settings would avoid an apparent contradiction.
  3. [§4, Table 4] The runtime discussion says TINTIN is "significantly faster" than training-dependent methods, but Table 4 shows T2I-Adapter's per-image inference time (8 s) is lower than TINTIN's (15 s); qualify the claim as total time including training, or correct the wording.
  4. [Throughout] Several typos and notation issues need cleanup: the abstract has "Co nditional"; §3.2 uses q both for the Conditioning Zone interval and for the step-back in iterative sampling; Eq. (10) should define the cross-entropy and the normalized distribution d̂ explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No central circularity; the conditioning losses match externally supplied palettes/edges. Mild self-supporting loop: the Conditioning Zone and repetition counts were tuned on the same COCO validation set used for the reported SOTA numbers.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (Iterative Sampling Strategy) and Section 4 (Quantitative Results)]
    "Determined through rigorous experimentation on the COCO dataset (Lin et al. 2015), CZ marks the most effective conditioning period... our experimentation reveals optimal conditioning outcomes when applying the iterative sampling strategy between 70 and 40 timesteps, with a repetition number of ≈ 20. ... We evaluate these methods on the COCO validation set comprising 5000 images, using the provided captions as text prompts."

    The Conditioning Zone boundaries (70-40 for color, 95-90 for edge) and repetition counts (about 20 and 50) are load-bearing hyperparameters of the iterative sampling strategy. The paper states these were 'determined through rigorous experimentation on the COCO dataset' and then reports all headline quantitative results (FID, CLIP, CDS, SSIM, MSE) on the COCO validation set. Thus the reported state-of-the-art numbers are produced by parameters selected on the same evaluation set; the quantitative claim is not an independent test of the method but a report of performance after dataset-specific tuning. This is a mild fitted-input-called-prediction loop, though the core algorithm itself is not circular because the losses still optimize against externally specified conditions.

full rationale

TINTIN's core derivation is not circular. The conditioning signal is an externally supplied color palette or edge map, and the proposed losses (LDS, LEuclidean, LIoU) are computed between the decoded denoised image and this external condition; optimizing them steers generation toward the condition. The energy-guided sampling framework follows FreeDoM's score-based formulation, which is cited as prior work and is not derived from the paper's own outputs. The self-citation to Agarwal et al. (overlapping authors) is used only as supporting motivation for applying color control in the middle of sampling; the actual CZ boundaries are claimed to be determined by experimentation, so the citation is not the load-bearing derivation. The one genuine self-supporting element is that the Conditioning Zone and repetition counts were tuned on the COCO dataset and the headline quantitative results (Tables 1 and 2) are reported on the COCO validation set. This means the reported SOTA performance is in-sample with respect to those hyperparameters, a mild fitted-input/called-prediction loop. It does not make the method's definition circular, because the losses still match the user-provided condition rather than a fitted constant. Note also that Table 2's inverted SSIM/MSE arrow conventions are a consistency issue in the empirical claim, not a circularity of the derivation; it is out of scope for this pass.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on standard diffusion and energy-guidance equations plus a set of empirically chosen hyperparameters. The most consequential choices, the Conditioning Zone boundaries and iteration counts, are data-dependent and were tuned on the same COCO validation set used for the final numbers.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_1, lambda_2 = 1, 0.1
    Color loss weighting coefficients in Eq. 11, described as experimentally assigned in Section 3.2 and Appendix 6.2.
  • rho = 100
    Sharpness parameter in the softmax over palette colors in Eq. 9.
  • color_CZ_timesteps = 70 to 40 with about 20 iterations per step
    Conditioning Zone for color, determined by experiments on the COCO dataset in Section 3.2.
  • edge_CZ_timesteps = 95 to 90 with about 50 iterations per step
    Conditioning Zone for edge, determined by experiments on the COCO dataset in Section 3.2.
  • edge_threshold = 0.9
    Threshold applied to edge maps before the IoU loss in Section 3.2.
  • q_steps_for_resampling = not specified
    The iterative sampling strategy says it navigates back q steps to xt+q, but q is never given numerically.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Conditional score decomposes via Bayes rule as the gradient of the unconditional score plus the gradient of the condition likelihood.
    Invoked in Section 3.1, Eq. 1.
  • domain assumption Noise prediction can be interpreted as an energy gradient, and the time-independent approximation D_phi is valid near the final sampling stages.
    Eqs. 4-7 in Section 3.1, taken from FreeDoM; validity is assumed, not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption Gradients computed by decoding latent xt to RGB and passing through pretrained color or edge feature networks meaningfully pull the latent toward the condition.
    Architecture in Figure 3 and Section 3.2; no proof that the gradient signal is well-conditioned.
  • domain assumption Colorization details are determined in the intermediate part of the denoising schedule.
    Used to justify the color Conditioning Zone, citing the authors' own Agarwal et al. reference.
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion v1.4 latent space and DDIM sampling provide a faithful image representation at intermediate denoising steps.
    Used throughout the experiments without validation of the intermediate latents.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Test-time Conditional Text-to-Image Synthesis Using Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R43EQKTS

@misc{pith2026241110800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Test-time Conditional Text-to-Image Synthesis Using Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R43EQKTS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10800}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the problem of conditional text-to-image synthesis with diffusion models. Most recent works need to either finetune specific parts of the base diffusion model or introduce new trainable parameters, leading to deployment inflexibility due to the need for training. To address this gap in the current literature, we propose our method called TINTIN: Test-time Conditional Text-to-Image Synthesis using Diffusion Models which is a new training-free test-time only algorithm to condition text-to-image diffusion model outputs on conditioning factors such as color palettes and edge maps. In particular, we propose to interpret noise predictions during denoising as gradients of an energy-based model, leading to a flexible approach to manipulate the noise by matching predictions inferred from them to the ground truth conditioning input. This results in, to the best of our knowledge, the first approach to control model outputs with input color palettes, which we realize using a novel color distribution matching loss. We also show this test-time noise manipulation can be easily extensible to other types of conditioning, e.g., edge maps. We conduct extensive experiments using a variety of text prompts, color palettes, and edge maps and demonstrate significant improvement over the current state-of-the-art, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10800 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We propose TINTIN, a training-free method to generate images with an extra condition using text-to-image diffusion models preserving the generation quality and diversity in the images. Our method performs well in comparison with training￾dependent models like T2I-Adapter (Mou et al. 2023). The first column illustrates the results of color conditioning, while the second column showcases the outcomes of edge condition… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of TINTIN with FreeDoM (Yu et al. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overall architecture of our training-free ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Demonstration of the amplified effect of applying conditional control in specific time interval for color and edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) We illustrate the ability of TINTIN in generating color palette conditioned images against trainable methods like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We compare TINTIN’s edge map conditioned im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We illustrate the ability of TINTIN in generat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We illustrate the ability of TINTIN in generat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    arXiv:2302.07121

    Univer- sal Guidance for Diffusion Models. arXiv:2302.07121. Bayes, T

    arXiv

  2. [4]

    arXiv:2211.09800

    Instruct- Pix2Pix: Learning to Follow Image Editing Instructions. arXiv:2211.09800. Cao, M.; Wang, X.; Qi, Z.; Shan, Y .; Qie, X.; and Zheng, Y

    arXiv

  3. [5]

    arXiv:2304.08465

    MasaCtrl: Tuning-Free Mutual Self- Attention Control for Consistent Image Synthesis and Edit- ing. arXiv:2304.08465. Dhariwal, P.; and Nichol, A

    arXiv

  4. [7]

    arXiv:2203.13131

    Make-A-Scene: Scene-Based Text- to-Image Generation with Human Priors. arXiv:2203.13131. Gal, R.; Alaluf, Y .; Atzmon, Y .; Patashnik, O.; Bermano, A. H.; Chechik, G.; and Cohen-Or, D

    arXiv

  5. [8]

    arXiv:2208.01618

    An Image is Worth One Word: Personalizing Text-to-Image Generation using Textual Inversion. arXiv:2208.01618. Hertz, A.; Mokady, R.; Tenenbaum, J.; Aberman, K.; Pritch, Y .; and Cohen-Or, D

    arXiv

  6. [9]

    arXiv:2208.01626

    Prompt-to-Prompt Image Edit- ing with Cross Attention Control. arXiv:2208.01626. Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P

    arXiv

  7. [12]

    arXiv:2210.09276

    Imagic: Text-Based Real Image Editing with Diffusion Models. arXiv:2210.09276. Kim, G.; Kwon, T.; and Ye, J. C

    arXiv

  8. [13]

    arXiv:2110.02711

    DiffusionCLIP: Text- Guided Diffusion Models for Robust Image Manipulation. arXiv:2110.02711. Lin, T.-Y .; Maire, M.; Belongie, S.; Bourdev, L.; Girshick, R.; Hays, J.; Perona, P.; Ramanan, D.; Zitnick, C. L.; and Doll´ar, P

    arXiv

Show all 33 references
  1. [15]

    arXiv:2108.01073

    SDEdit: Guided Image Syn- thesis and Editing with Stochastic Differential Equations. arXiv:2108.01073. Mou, C.; Wang, X.; Xie, L.; Wu, Y .; Zhang, J.; Qi, Z.; Shan, Y .; and Qie, X

    arXiv

  2. [16]

    arXiv:2302.08453

    T2I-Adapter: Learning Adapters to Dig out More Controllable Ability for Text-to-Image Diffu- sion Models. arXiv:2302.08453. Nichol, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Ramesh, A.; Shyam, P.; Mishkin, P.; McGrew, B.; Sutskever, I.; and Chen, M

    arXiv

  3. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741

    Glide: To- wards photorealistic image generation and editing with text- guided diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741. Parmar, G.; Singh, K. K.; Zhang, R.; Li, Y .; Lu, J.; and Zhu, J.-Y

    arXiv

  4. [18]

    arXiv:2302.03027

    Zero-shot Image-to-Image Translation. arXiv:2302.03027. 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

    arXiv

  5. [19]

    arXiv:2103.00020

    Learning Transfer- able Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. arXiv:2103.00020. Radford, A.; Metz, L.; and Chintala, S

    arXiv

  6. [21]

    arXiv:2204.06125

    Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents. arXiv:2204.06125. Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Om- mer, B

    arXiv

  7. [22]

    arXiv:2205.11487

    Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Language Understanding. arXiv:2205.11487. Seitzer, M

    arXiv

  8. [23]

    arXiv:1503.03585

    Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics. arXiv:1503.03585. Song, Y .; and Ermon, S

    arXiv

  9. [25]

    arXiv:2111.08005

    Solv- ing Inverse Problems in Medical Imaging with Score-Based Generative Models. arXiv:2111.08005. Song, Y .; Sohl-Dickstein, J.; Kingma, D. P.; Kumar, A.; Ermon, S.; and Poole, B

    arXiv

  10. [26]

    arXiv:2011.13456

    Score-Based Genera- tive Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equations. arXiv:2011.13456. Vavilala, V .; and Forsyth, D

    2011 arXiv

  11. [27]

    arXiv:2307.02698

    Applying a Color Palette with Local Control using Diffusion Models. arXiv:2307.02698. Wang, H.; Yu, Y .; Luo, T.; Fan, H.; and Zhang, L

    arXiv

  12. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12952

    Pretraining is all you need for image-to-image translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12952. Wang, Y .; Yu, J.; and Zhang, J

    arXiv

  13. [29]

    arXiv:2104.05703

    Adversarial Open Domain Adaptation for Sketch-to-Photo Synthesis. arXiv:2104.05703. Yu, J.; Wang, Y .; Zhao, C.; Ghanem, B.; and Zhang, J

    arXiv

  14. [30]

    arXiv:2303.09833

    FreeDoM: Training-Free Energy-Guided Conditional Diffu- sion Model. arXiv:2303.09833. Zhang, Y .; Dong, W.; Tang, F.; Huang, N.; Huang, H.; Ma, C.; Lee, T.-Y .; Deussen, O.; and Xu, C

    arXiv

  15. [31]

    arXiv:2305.16225

    ProSpect: Expanded Conditioning for the Personalization of Attribute- aware Image Generation. arXiv:2305.16225. Zhao, J.; Mathieu, M.; and LeCun, Y

    arXiv

  16. [32]

    arXiv:1609.03126

    Energy-based Generative Adversarial Network. arXiv:1609.03126. Zhao, M.; Bao, F.; Li, C.; and Zhu, J

    arXiv

  17. [33]

    arXiv:2305.16322

    Uni-ControlNet: All-in-One Con- trol to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. arXiv:2305.16322

    arXiv

  18. [2015]

    arXiv:1405.0312

    Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Con- text. arXiv:1405.0312. Liu, X.; Park, D. H.; Azadi, S.; Zhang, G.; Chopikyan, A.; Hu, Y .; Shi, H.; Rohrbach, A.; and Darrell, T

    arXiv

  19. [2016]

    arXiv:1511.06434

    Unsupervised Representation Learning with Deep Convolutional Genera- tive Adversarial Networks. arXiv:1511.06434. Ramesh, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Nichol, A.; Chu, C.; and Chen, M

    arXiv

  20. [2017]

    arXiv:1612.04357

    Stacked Generative Adversarial Networks. arXiv:1612.04357. Jaccard, P

    arXiv

  21. [2018]

    arXiv:1710.10196

    Pro- gressive Growing of GANs for Improved Quality, Stability, and Variation. arXiv:1710.10196. Kawar, B.; Zada, S.; Lang, O.; Tov, O.; Chang, H.; Dekel, T.; Mosseri, I.; and Irani, M

    arXiv

  22. [2020]

    arXiv:1907.05600

    Generative Model- ing by Estimating Gradients of the Data Distribution. arXiv:1907.05600. Song, Y .; Shen, L.; Xing, L.; and Ermon, S

    1907 arXiv

  23. [2021]

    arXiv:2105.05233

    Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Synthesis. arXiv:2105.05233. Gafni, O.; Polyak, A.; Ashual, O.; Sheynin, S.; Parikh, D.; and Taigman, Y

    arXiv

  24. [2022]

    In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR)

    Blended Diffusion for Text-driven Editing of Natural Images. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE. Bansal, A.; Chu, H.-M.; Schwarzschild, A.; Sengupta, S.; Goldblum, M.; Geiping, J.; and Goldstein, T

    2022

  25. [2023]

    arXiv:2311.11919

    An Image is Worth Multiple Words: Multi- attribute Inversion for Constrained Text-to-Image Synthesis. arXiv:2311.11919. Avrahami, O.; Lischinski, D.; and Fried, O

    arXiv

Pith tools

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