StyleSentinel: Reliable Artistic Copyright Verification via Stylistic Fingerprints

Lingxiao Chen; Liqin Wang; Wei Lu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

StyleSentinel: Reliable Artistic Copyright Verification via Stylistic Fingerprints

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read StyleSentinel verifies artistic copyright by extracting an inherent style fingerprint from an artist's works and checking whether a suspect image falls inside a learned hypersphere boundary, with no image preprocessing required.

desk verdict Solid style-based verification with strong numbers and a useful augmentation trick, but 'reliable' overreaches until detector-aware evasion is tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01335 v1 pith:UIU4LXEC submitted 2025-08-02 cs.CV

Lingxiao Chen , Liqin Wang , Wei Lu This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords artisticcopyrightverificationstylisticfingerprintone-classclassificationhypersphereverifierstylemimicrydiffusionmodelsdataaugmentationintellectualpropertyprotection

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

StyleSentinel is a copyright-verification method that treats an artist's style as an inherent, persistent signal rather than something injected into images. The paper proposes extracting a compact stylistic fingerprint from an artist's original artworks and fitting a minimal enclosing hypersphere around those fingerprints in feature space. At verification time, a suspect image is attributed to the artist if its fingerprint falls inside that hypersphere, so a single image suffices for a decision. The authors claim this outperforms watermark-, perturbation-, and backdoor-based defenses on the one-sample verification task and works retroactively on artworks that are already published online. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a way to protect artistic intellectual property without altering or downgrading the artist's images.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stylistic fingerprint: a compact vector produced by adaptively fusing multi-layer image features, paired with the minimal enclosing hypersphere learned around the target artist's fingerprints in a projected feature space. The hypersphere is defined by a learnable center $o$ and a validation-tuned radius $R$, and verification is the binary test of whether a suspect image's fingerprint lies inside it. The paper's loss combines a positive term that pulls target artworks toward $o$ with a negative term that repels non-target style vectors outward, which turns copyright verification into a one-class classification problem. The supporting mechanism is the semantic self-reconstruction augmentation, which preserves style-semantic coupling while generating diverse samples to overcome the scarcity of a single artist's portfolio.

What would settle it

Take one artist's original works, learn the hypersphere boundary exactly as described, then fine-tune a diffusion model outside the three tested generators on a disjoint set of the same artist's works; if the true-positive rate for generated images at a 1% false-positive rate falls well below the roughly 0.9 the paper reports, the persistent-style premise fails to transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an artist's style survives the process of fine-tuning a text-to-image model and reappears in generated images, so it can serve as a persistent fingerprint for attribution. The authors build a three-stage pipeline: a semantic self-reconstruction augmentation that uses BLIP captions and a style-transfer model to create style-consistent variations of each artwork; a multi-layer attention style extractor that fuses VGG-19 features from low, mid, and high levels into one vector; and a hypersphere-based verifier that encloses the target artist's style vectors while repelling negatives. They frame verification as a one-class learning problem, avoiding the ill-posed task of separating the target style from the unbounded space of all other styles. The reported experiments cover three surrogate generators (SD1.5, SD2.1, Kandinsky) fine-tuned with DreamBooth or LoRA, with AUC above 0.989 and TPR at a $10^{-2}$ false-positive rate above 0.862 across those settings, plus validation on the Shakker and LibLibAI platforms.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an artist's style is a persistent fingerprint that survives training and reappears in generated images, so a boundary learned around original artworks will also contain the style of copied images.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A defender who obtains a single suspect image, with no knowledge of the attacker's model or prompt, can decide whether that image carries the protected artist's style by checking its fingerprint against the learned hypersphere.
Because verification relies on an inherent style signal rather than an embedded watermark or perturbation, images already circulating online are protected retroactively and no preprocessing of the artist's works is needed.
Attacks that remove or corrupt external signals, which defeat watermark- and backdoor-based defenses, do not erase the style evidence carried in the image content itself.
The same learned fingerprint transfers across DreamBooth and LoRA fine-tuning and across the three tested diffusion generators, with reported AUC values up to 0.998.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper tests only three surrogate generators (SD1.5, SD2.1, Kandinsky), so the persistence assumption remains unverified for unseen or future generators; a natural extension is to evaluate the same fingerprints against a newer model and after strong post-processing.
If style persistence holds broadly, the same hypersphere representation could serve as a general style descriptor for provenance of AI-generated art or for artist retrieval, though the paper does not explore those uses.
A deployed service would likely need one trained hypersphere and threshold per artist, calibrated on validation images; the paper tunes the radius on a validation set, so an artist with very few works or highly variable style may need additional calibration samples.

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

Short version: StyleSentinel is a well-built extension of the ArtistAuditor line. It does two genuinely useful things. The semantic self-reconstruction augmentation—re-captioning an artwork with BLIP and re-rendering it through a style transfer model—is a clever way to stretch a small artist portfolio into a style-consistent training set. And the multi-layer attention fusion plus hypersphere verifier is a sensible way to turn style features into a one-class boundary. The reported numbers are strong: AUC 0.99 and TPR@FPR=1e-2 mostly above 0.9 across five fine-tuning settings on two datasets, and the ablations back up each component. The generalization and real-platform tests add credibility. So if you work on copyright verification, this is worth reading.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. All results are single runs with no variance; I'd want to see seeds and intervals before believing 0.998. The conversion of watermark/backdoor baseline outputs to AUC/TPR is not described, which makes the head-to-head comparison hard to trust. No code or data released, so the core method is not independently reproducible yet. And the attack model is narrow: three surrogate generators, and the robustness study uses hand-picked transforms and prompt tweaks, not perturbations optimized against the verifier itself. That last one matters because the abstract says 'reliable.' If a white-box attacker can push a mimicked image a few LPIPS steps away from the hypersphere center, the one-sample verification claim is weaker than the numbers suggest. The paper's own threat model grants attackers preprocessing and augmentation, so this is in scope. The stress-test note is right on that point.

I don't think any of this sinks the method. The central argument—that style features can work as a no-preprocessing verification signal—holds up. The paper deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to review with a request for code/data, multi-run stats, a spelled-out baseline conversion, and at least one detector-aware evasion study. That's a revision path, not a rejection.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. StyleSentinel proposes a one-sample artistic copyright verification method based on a learned stylistic fingerprint. The pipeline first augments a small set of positive artworks through a semantic self-reconstruction process (BLIP captions plus a style transfer model), then extracts a compact style vector with a fine-tuned VGG-19 multi-layer attention extractor, and finally performs verification with a hypersphere-based one-class verifier trained by pulling positive style vectors toward a center and repelling negatives. Experiments on WikiArt and ArtBench, using DreamBooth/LoRA fine-tuned Stable Diffusion v1.5, v2.1, and Kandinsky as surrogate mimic models, report AUC values around 0.99 and TPR@FPR=10^-2 values above 0.88, together with robustness checks, ablations, hyperparameter sensitivity, generalization studies, and tests on two online fine-tuning platforms. The central claim is that style acts as a persistent fingerprint, so verification can be done with a single suspect image and without modifying or watermarking the artist's original images.

Significance. If the reported results hold, StyleSentinel is a practically valuable contribution: it requires no preprocessing of protected images, can retroactively protect artworks already published online, and its one-class formulation is a better fit for the unbounded negative class of 'non-target styles' than binary classification. The paper's strengths include the component-level ablations that support the contribution of each module, the relatively extensive set of surrogate generators and fine-tuning protocols, and the real-platform validation. However, the manuscript's 'reliable' claim is only demonstrated against non-optimized, verifier-agnostic perturbations, and the lack of statistical uncertainty and absence of code/data make the headline numbers hard to assess independently.

major comments (4)

[Threat Model and Robustness Study (Figure 4)] The threat model grants attackers preprocessing, data augmentation, secondary fine-tuning, and prompt attacks, yet the robustness study only evaluates fixed, verifier-agnostic manipulations (rotation, JPEG, blur, hue, contrast, second-stage fine-tuning, and non-optimized prompt changes). Because the decision boundary is a learned hypersphere in a high-dimensional feature space, a detector-aware attacker can optimize a small LPIPS- or L_p-bounded perturbation to push a mimicked image's style vector outside the hypersphere while leaving visual style intact. No such adaptive evasion is evaluated. The central 'reliable verification' claim is therefore conditional on a non-adaptive attacker; please add an adversarial evaluation (e.g., PGD-style optimization on the distance to the center with a perceptual budget) or explicitly qualify the robustness claim.
[Evaluation Metrics and Baseline paragraph] The conversion of the four baselines' native metrics into AUC and TPR@FPR=10^-2 is described only as 'inspired by (Li et al. 2025)', with no concrete procedure reported. Since every headline comparison in Table 1 depends on this conversion, the fairness and reproducibility of the comparison cannot be assessed. Please provide the exact conversion protocol, including how scores are thresholded, how the FPR is calibrated, and what raw outputs the baselines produce.
[Tables 1-4 and Figure 4-5] All results are reported as point estimates from what appear to be single runs, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or number of random seeds/splits. For a method whose stated goal is 'reliable' verification, this is insufficient statistical evidence. Please report mean and standard deviation over multiple training runs and artist splits, and, if possible, release code and trained models to allow independent verification.
[Training and Inference; Evaluation Metrics] The radius R is selected by a line search on a validation set, but the evaluation uses AUC and TPR@FPR=10^-2. It is unclear whether the reported TPR@FPR=10^-2 is computed in the standard ROC way (setting the decision threshold to achieve exactly 10^-2 FPR on the test set) or by fixing the validation-tuned R and then reporting the resulting empirical FPR/TPR. If the latter, the actual test FPR may differ materially from 10^-2, making comparisons with baselines unfair. Please clarify the exact operating-point protocol and report the matching FPR values.

minor comments (4)

[Equations (3)-(4)] The expression under the square root is written ambiguously as √(d_i^2 + 1 − m); please add parentheses to make clear whether m is inside the root, and note what happens to the domain when m > 1 (the text says this causes instability, but the formula becomes potentially complex).
[Figure 4 caption and axis labels] The label 'TPR@FPR=10 2' should be typeset as 'TPR@FPR=10^{-2}' for readability.
[Experimental Setting: Datasets and Models] The number of artists, number of images per artist, and the exact split between positive and negative samples are not reported; including these details is necessary for reproducibility.
[References] There are typographical errors in the reference list, including 'V oss' in Wang et al. 2023b and 'F orensics' in Zhu et al. 2024; please proofread the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: StyleSentinel's verification pipeline is a trained one-class classifier with external baselines and held-out evaluation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The stylistic fingerprint is extracted by a learned multi-layer attention extractor, and the hypersphere verifier is trained with a one-class objective (Eqs. 3-5) on positive samples from the artist's own works plus negatives from WikiArt; it is then evaluated on held-out mimicked images produced by external surrogate models (SD1.5, SD2.1, Kandinsky) fine-tuned with DreamBooth/LoRA. The decision radius R is selected by line search on a validation set, which is standard threshold calibration rather than a fitted input masquerading as a prediction. The key premise that style survives training is supported by external citations (Wang et al. 2023b; Somepalli et al. 2023), and the attack robustness experiments and real-world platform tests use outside data. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to the target result, and no self-citation chain is used to justify the method's central assumption. Potential concerns about detector-aware adversarial evasion or generalization to unseen generators are correctness or robustness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that style is a stable, transferable signal, plus several modeling choices (VGG features, attention fusion, hypersphere boundary) and hyperparameters tuned on validation data. No new physical entity is introduced; the 'stylistic fingerprint' is an internal learned representation with no independent evidence outside the paper's evaluation.

free parameters (5)

hypersphere radius R = not reported numerically
Chosen by line search on the validation set to set the decision boundary; directly determines the TPR/FPR trade-off.
soft margin m = 1.0
Chosen via the hyperparameter sensitivity study; controls the loss contribution of positive samples.
repulsion intensity beta = 0.3
Chosen via ablation; controls how strongly negative samples are pushed away from the hypersphere center.
loss weights lambda_pos and lambda_neg = 1.0 each
Chosen via ablation; the paper states that matching the weights is critical for performance.
number of augmented images per positive sample = 1 to 3
Hand-selected; directly affects the size and diversity of the positive training set.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Artistic style is a persistent fingerprint preserved when a diffusion model is fine-tuned on an artist's artworks.
Stated in the Introduction as the core motivation; if false, no style-based verifier can work.
ad hoc to paper Semantic self-reconstruction with BLIP captions and a style transfer model produces augmented images that preserve the artist's style while varying content.
The entire augmentation module depends on this; the paper provides visual examples but no quantitative verification that the augmented style distribution matches the original.
domain assumption VGG-19 features at selected low, mid, and high layers contain sufficient information to represent artistic style for verification.
The style extractor relies on these features, but no comparison to other backbones or feature sets is provided.
domain assumption A hypersphere in the learned feature space is an appropriate decision boundary for style membership.
One-class classification assumes positive samples are unimodal and roughly spherical after projection; no evidence addresses multi-modal artist styles.
domain assumption The surrogate models (SD1.5, SD2.1, Kandinsky fine-tuned with DreamBooth/LoRA) represent real attacker behavior.
All mimicked test images come from these generators; there is no evidence for other fine-tuning methods or unseen generators.

invented entities (1)

Stylistic fingerprint
purpose: A compact feature vector claimed to encode an artist's abstract style and to persist through fine-tuning.
The fingerprint is defined and evaluated only through the paper's own extractor and hypersphere; no external benchmark or published artifact verifies it.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of StyleSentinel: Reliable Artistic Copyright Verification via Stylistic Fingerprints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UIU4LXEC

@misc{pith2026250801335,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: StyleSentinel: Reliable Artistic Copyright Verification via Stylistic Fingerprints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UIU4LXEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01335}
}

read the original abstract

The versatility of diffusion models in generating customized images has led to unauthorized usage of personal artwork, which poses a significant threat to the intellectual property of artists. Existing approaches relying on embedding additional information, such as perturbations, watermarks, and backdoors, suffer from limited defensive capabilities and fail to protect artwork published online. In this paper, we propose StyleSentinel, an approach for copyright protection of artwork by verifying an inherent stylistic fingerprint in the artist's artwork. Specifically, we employ a semantic self-reconstruction process to enhance stylistic expressiveness within the artwork, which establishes a dense and style-consistent manifold foundation for feature learning. Subsequently, we adaptively fuse multi-layer image features to encode abstract artistic style into a compact stylistic fingerprint. Finally, we model the target artist's style as a minimal enclosing hypersphere boundary in the feature space, transforming complex copyright verification into a robust one-class learning task. Extensive experiments demonstrate that compared with the state-of-the-art, StyleSentinel achieves superior performance on the one-sample verification task. We also demonstrate the effectiveness through online platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.01335 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of the proposed StyleSentinel. The pipeline comprises three main stages. (1) Style Augmentation: A se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Some original images (a) and reconstructed images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Robustness of StyleSentinel against common im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Ablation study on hyperparameters. Generalization Study We evaluate the generalization of StyleSentinel when the artworks used to train the verifier differ from those used to fine-tune the suspicious model. Specifically, we use a partially overlapping dataset for the s…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

The Silent Brush: Evaluating Artistic Style Leakage in AI Art Generation
cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

Art Arena evaluates how artistic styles from training data leak into AI-generated images without explicit prompts, revealing asymmetric blending due to differences in representational strength and interaction dynamics...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

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

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Bui, T.; Agarwal, S.; Yu, N.; and Collomosse, J. 2023. Rosteals: Robust steganography using autoencoder latent space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 933--942

work page 2023
[4]

Cao, B.; Li, C.; Wang, T.; Jia, J.; Li, B.; and Chen, J. 2023. IMPRESS: Evaluating the Resilience of Imperceptible Perturbations Against Unauthorized Data Usage in Diffusion-Based Generative AI. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, 10657--10677. Curran Associates, Inc

work page 2023
[5]

Chen, D.; Yu, N.; Zhang, Y.; and Fritz, M. 2020. Gan-leaks: A taxonomy of membership inference attacks against generative models. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 343--362

work page 2020
[6]

Chen, R.; Jin, H.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J.; Wang, H.; and Sun, L. 2024. Editshield: Protecting unauthorized image editing by instruction-guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, 126--142. Springer

work page 2024
[7]

Chou, S.-Y.; Chen, P.-Y.; and Ho, T.-Y. 2023. How to backdoor diffusion models? In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4015--4024

2023
[8]

Cui, Y.; Ren, J.; Xu, H.; He, P.; Liu, H.; Sun, L.; Xing, Y.; and Tang, J. 2023. Diffusionshield: A watermark for copyright protection against generative diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04642

arXiv 2023

Show all 38 references

[9]

Deng, J.; Dong, W.; Socher, R.; Li, L.-J.; Li, K.; and Fei-Fei, L. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 248--255

2009
[10]

Du, L.; Zhu, Z.; Chen, M.; Su, Z.; Ji, S.; Cheng, P.; Chen, J.; and Zhang, Z. 2025. ArtistAuditor: Auditing Artist Style Pirate in Text-to-Image Generation Models. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference, 2500--2513

2025
[11]

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

Gal, R.; Alaluf, Y.; Atzmon, Y.; Patashnik, O.; Bermano, A. H.; Chechik, G.; and Cohen-Or, D. 2022. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618

2022 arXiv
[12]

A.; Ecker, A

Gatys, L. A.; Ecker, A. S.; and Bethge, M. 2015. A neural algorithm of artistic style. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.06576

2015 arXiv
[13]

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

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

2021 arXiv
[14]

Li, B.; Wei, Y.; Fu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, R.; and Zhang, T. 2025. Towards reliable verification of unauthorized data usage in personalized text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2564--2582

2025
[15]

Li, J.; Li, D.; Xiong, C.; and Hoi, S. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, 12888--12900

2022
[16]

Liao, P.; Li, X.; Liu, X.; and Keutzer, K. 2022. The artbench dataset: Benchmarking generative models with artworks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.11404

2022 arXiv
[17]

Luo, G.; Huang, J.; Zhang, M.; Qian, Z.; Li, S.; and Zhang, X. 2023. Steal my artworks for fine-tuning? a watermarking framework for detecting art theft mimicry in text-to-image models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13619

2023 arXiv
[18]

Ma, Y.; Zhao, Z.; He, X.; Li, Z.; Backes, M.; and Zhang, Y. 2023. Generative watermarking against unauthorized subject-driven image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07754

2023 arXiv
[19]

Moayeri, M.; Basu, S.; Balasubramanian, S.; Kattakinda, P.; Chengini, A.; Brauneis, R.; and Feizi, S. 2024. Rethinking artistic copyright infringements in the era of text-to-image generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08030

2024 arXiv
[20]

Ramesh, A.; Pavlov, M.; Goh, G.; Gray, S.; Voss, C.; Radford, A.; Chen, M.; and Sutskever, I. 2021. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, 8821--8831

2021
[21]

Razzhigaev, A.; Shakhmatov, A.; Maltseva, A.; Arkhipkin, V.; Pavlov, I.; Ryabov, I.; Kuts, A.; Panchenko, A.; Kuznetsov, A.; and Dimitrov, D. 2023. Kandinsky: an improved text-to-image synthesis with image prior and latent diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03502

2023 arXiv
[22]

Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 10684--10695

2022
[23]

A.; Binder, A.; M \"u ller, E.; and Kloft, M

Ruff, L.; Vandermeulen, R.; Goernitz, N.; Deecke, L.; Siddiqui, S. A.; Binder, A.; M \"u ller, E.; and Kloft, M. 2018. Deep one-class classification. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, 4393--4402

2018
[24]

Ruiz, N.; Li, Y.; Jampani, V.; Pritch, Y.; Rubinstein, M.; and Aberman, K. 2023. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 22500--22510

2023
[25]

Schuhmann, C.; Beaumont, R.; Vencu, R.; Gordon, C.; Wightman, R.; Cherti, M.; Coombes, T.; Katta, A.; Mullis, C.; Wortsman, M.; Schramowski, P.; Kundurthy, S.; Crowson, K.; Schmidt, L.; Kaczmarczyk, R.; and Jitsev, J. 2022. LAION-5B: An open large-scale dataset for training ne...

2022
[26]

Shan, S.; Cryan, J.; Wenger, E.; Zheng, H.; Hanocka, R.; and Zhao, B. Y. 2023. Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by \ Text-to-Image \ models. In Proceedings of the 32nd USENIX Security Symposium, 2187--2204

2023
[27]

Shokri, R.; Stronati, M.; Song, C.; and Shmatikov, V. 2017. Membership inference attacks against machine learning models. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 3--18

2017
[28]

Simonyan, K.; and Zisserman, A. 2014. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556

2014 arXiv
[29]

Somepalli, G.; Singla, V.; Goldblum, M.; Geiping, J.; and Goldstein, T. 2023. Diffusion art or digital forgery? investigating data replication in diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6048--6058

2023
[30]

R.; Chan, C

Tan, W. R.; Chan, C. S.; Aguirre, H. E.; and Tanaka, K. 2018. Improved artgan for conditional synthesis of natural image and artwork. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 28(1): 394--409

2018
[31]

H.; Dao, Q.; Tran, N

Van Le, T.; Phung, H.; Nguyen, T. H.; Dao, Q.; Tran, N. N.; and Tran, A. 2023. Anti-dreambooth: Protecting users from personalized text-to-image synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2116--2127

2023
[32]

Wang, H.; Spinelli, M.; Wang, Q.; Bai, X.; Qin, Z.; and Chen, A. 2024. Instantstyle: Free lunch towards style-preserving in text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02733

2024 arXiv
[33]

N.; and Ma, S

Wang, Z.; Chen, C.; Lyu, L.; Metaxas, D. N.; and Ma, S. 2023 a . Diagnosis: Detecting unauthorized data usages in text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03108

2023 arXiv
[34]

Wang, Z.; Chen, C.; Zeng, Y.; Lyu, L.; and Ma, S. 2023 b . Alteration-free and model-agnostic origin attribution of generated images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18439

2023 arXiv
[35]

Zhang, Y.; Tang, F.; Dong, W.; Huang, H.; Ma, C.; Lee, T.-Y.; and Xu, C. 2022. Domain enhanced arbitrary image style transfer via contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Conference Proceedings, 1--8

2022
[36]

Zhao, X.; Zhang, K.; Su, Z.; Vasan, S.; Grishchenko, I.; Kruegel, C.; Vigna, G.; Wang, Y.-X.; and Li, L. 2024 a . Invisible Image Watermarks Are Provably Removable Using Generative AI. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, 8643--8672

2024
[37]

Zhao, Z.; Duan, J.; Xu, K.; Wang, C.; Zhang, R.; Du, Z.; Guo, Q.; and Hu, X. 2024 b . Can protective perturbation safeguard personal data from being exploited by stable diffusion? In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 24398--24407

2024
[38]

Zhu, H.; Liu, M.; Fang, C.; Deng, R.; and Cheng, P. 2023. Detection-performance tradeoff for watermarking in industrial control systems. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 18: 2780--2793

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

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

[2] [2]

write newline

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

[3] [3]

Bui, T.; Agarwal, S.; Yu, N.; and Collomosse, J. 2023. Rosteals: Robust steganography using autoencoder latent space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 933--942

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Cao, B.; Li, C.; Wang, T.; Jia, J.; Li, B.; and Chen, J. 2023. IMPRESS: Evaluating the Resilience of Imperceptible Perturbations Against Unauthorized Data Usage in Diffusion-Based Generative AI. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, 10657--10677. Curran Associates, Inc

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Chen, D.; Yu, N.; Zhang, Y.; and Fritz, M. 2020. Gan-leaks: A taxonomy of membership inference attacks against generative models. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 343--362

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Chen, R.; Jin, H.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J.; Wang, H.; and Sun, L. 2024. Editshield: Protecting unauthorized image editing by instruction-guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, 126--142. Springer

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Chou, S.-Y.; Chen, P.-Y.; and Ho, T.-Y. 2023. How to backdoor diffusion models? In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4015--4024

2023

[8] [8]

Cui, Y.; Ren, J.; Xu, H.; He, P.; Liu, H.; Sun, L.; Xing, Y.; and Tang, J. 2023. Diffusionshield: A watermark for copyright protection against generative diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04642

arXiv 2023