Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

LayeringDiff: Layered Image Synthesis via Generation, then Disassembly with Generative Knowledge

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Layered image synthesis can be reframed as generation followed by decomposition, avoiding large-scale training; the paper's LayeringDiff pipeline generates a composite with an off-the-shelf text-to-image model and then disassembles it…

desk verdict Clever generate-then-disassemble pipeline with real training savings, but the headline comparison to LayerDiffuse is confounded by using SDXL while baselines use SD1.5, and the FG-MIoU metric is circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01197 v1 pith:UR3QX3YY submitted 2025-01-02 cs.CV

Kyoungkook Kang , Gyujin Sim , Geonung Kim , Donguk Kim , Seungho Nam , Sunghyun Cho This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords layeredimagesynthesislayerdecompositiondiffusionmodelsmattinginpaintinggenerativepriorhigh-frequencyalignmenttext-to-imagegeneration
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

LayeringDiff proposes to synthesize layered images by first generating a normal composite image with an off-the-shelf text-to-image model, then disassembling it into foreground and background layers. The paper argues that this reframing avoids the need for large-scale training of a generative model that outputs layers directly, since decomposition is an easier task and can be learned from 20,000 synthetic composite images. The method outperforms existing layered image synthesis approaches in quality, diversity, and naturalness, and supports practical applications such as multi-layer synthesis and decomposition of real-world images.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the linear compositing model $C = \alpha \cdot F + (1 - \alpha) \cdot B$, which turns layer synthesis into a matting-plus-inpainting problem. The pipeline obtains $\alpha$ from a prompt-conditioned detection-segmentation-matting chain (GroundingDINO, SAM, ViTMatte). The FBDD module then uses two latent-diffusion UNets, initialized from a Stable Diffusion 2 inpainting model, each conditioned on the latent of the composite and the resized $\alpha$, to denoise a foreground and a background latent; the HFA module refines them with UNets, using a background loss that combines MSE with a Haar-wavelet high-frequency error to align occluded-region textures to the FBDD output.

What would settle it

Take a composite whose foreground is deliberately missed by the detection step (or whose alpha mask is eroded), run the layering stage, and check whether the output background still contains the foreground object; the paper's own limitation note predicts it will, since accurate alpha prediction is assumed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that layered image synthesis can be reformulated as a layer decomposition problem: instead of fine-tuning a generative model to produce foreground and background layers from a prompt, one can generate a composite image with any off-the-shelf text-to-image model, identify the foreground region from the prompt, and then decompose the composite into a foreground layer, a background layer, and an alpha mask. The decomposition is carried out by two diffusion UNets (the FBDD module) fine-tuned on only 20,000 synthetic composite images, followed by high-frequency alignment networks (FAN and BAN) that restore texture from the original composite. The paper reports that this pipeline produces more diverse and natural layers than existing methods and that it avoids the object-scale bias that comes from training on object-centric RGBA datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the automatically estimated $\alpha$ mask $\alpha$ is accurate enough: if the detector misses the foreground object or the matte is coarse, the downstream decomposition cannot recover correct layers, and the linear compositing model also excludes effects like shadows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Layered image synthesis no longer requires millions of paired layer images for training; the decomposition modules train on 20,000 synthetic composites.
  • Because the composite comes from an off-the-shelf generative model, content and object-scale diversity are inherited from that model, and conditional controls like ControlNet can be plugged in without retraining.
  • The approach naturally extends to multiple foreground layers by sequential decomposition and to real-world image decomposition, broadening its applicability beyond synthetic generation.
  • Background layers are synthesized with generative content in occluded regions instead of blurry inpainting, improving perceptual quality in the final composite.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 'generate then disassemble' tactic could generalize to other structured outputs (e.g., object separation, intrinsic image decomposition) where a composite is easier to generate than its parts.
  • The alpha-estimation bottleneck suggests that improving open-vocabulary detection and matting would directly improve layer quality; a learned, prompt-aware matting network could replace the fixed pipeline.
  • The background high-frequency loss indicates a general recipe for training refinement networks when ground truth is absent in occluded regions: match the generative prior's texture rather than its absolute color.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LayeringDiff, a three-stage pipeline for layered image synthesis from a text prompt. It first generates a composite image with an off-the-shelf generative model (SDXL), determines a foreground alpha mask using GroundingDINO, SAM, and ViTMatte, and then decomposes the composite into foreground and background layers using a fine-tuned latent diffusion module (FBDD) and high-frequency alignment networks (FAN/BAN). The decomposition modules are trained on only 20,000 synthetic composite images. Experiments compare LayeringDiff with LayerDiffuse quantitatively (FID, KID, CLIP score, a proposed FG-MIoU, diversity metrics, and a user study) and with Text2Layer and LayerDiff qualitatively, and demonstrate applications such as multi-layer synthesis and real-image decomposition.

Significance. If the central claim holds, LayeringDiff is a practically attractive alternative to end-to-end layered-image generation: it bypasses large-scale training for individual layers, enables diverse object scales through an off-the-shelf generator, and uses only 20,000 training samples for the decomposition networks. The paper also contains a clear problem formulation and several useful application demonstrations. However, the evidence as presented does not currently establish that the proposed pipeline, rather than the stronger base generator, is responsible for the reported gains. The proposed FG-MIoU metric is also partly self-fulfilling because it uses the same detection and segmentation models used to construct the alpha mask in the first place. The core idea is promising, but the comparative evaluation needs to be reworked before the headline claim of outperforming existing approaches can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The headline claim of outperforming existing layered image synthesis methods is confounded by the base generative model. LayeringDiff generates its initial composite with SDXL (Sec. 3.1), whereas all LayerDiffuse baselines are the official SD 1.5 models (Sec. 4.1). Since the HFA module copies pixel values from the initial composite wherever alpha = 0 or alpha = 1 (Sec. 3.3), and these regions dominate most natural images, the final composite and most layer content are inherited from the SDXL generation. Reported advantages in composite FID/KID, CLIP score, and the user study could therefore reflect the stronger base generator rather than the disassembly modules. This concern is consistent with the paper's own results: LayeringDiff is worse than LayerDiffuse T2L on foreground FID/KID (133.76/0.037 vs 127.14/0.033) and worse on background CLIP score (26.72 vs 27.70-28.15). Please add a controlled comparison, for example using an SD 1.5 initial composite inside LayeringDiff or re-running a LayerDiffuse-style method on an SDXL backbone, and report the change in the metrics. Without such a control, Tables 1-3 cannot support the claim that the proposed pipeline is responsible for the gains.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The proposed FG-MIoU metric is partially circular. FG-MIoU is computed by detecting a foreground bounding box with GroundingDINO and estimating a semantic mask with SAM, exactly the same models used in the foreground determination stage (Sec. 3.2) to construct the alpha mask from which the foreground layer is built. Consequently, the metric systematically favors outputs aligned with those specific detectors, and the large FG-MIoU advantage of LayeringDiff (0.87 vs 0.62-0.72 for LayerDiffuse baselines) is at least partly by construction. The paper's own Limitations paragraph acknowledges that the method assumes an accurate alpha prediction, which reinforces this concern because decomposition quality is directly tied to the same detector family. Please re-evaluate FG-MIoU with an independent detector/segmenter (for example a different model family or human-annotated masks) and show the resulting comparison, or provide an argument for why the circularity does not favor the proposed method.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The paper's conclusion that LayeringDiff 'outperforms existing layered image synthesis approaches' is not fully supported by its own quantitative tables. In Table 1, the background CLIP score of Ours (26.72) is lower than all three LayerDiffuse baselines (27.70-28.15), and the foreground FID/KID of Ours are worse than LayerDiffuse T2L. The text acknowledges the foreground FID/KID difference only in a passing remark, but the background CLIP gap is not discussed. Additionally, the user study in Table 3 is based on 24 participants from the authors' institution, only 15 test prompts, no confidence intervals or significance tests, and it does not include Text2Layer or LayerDiff. Please report error bars or statistical tests, include the metrics on which the method is worse in the discussion, and state the user-study limitations explicitly. Without these additions, the overall outperformance claim is over-stated relative to the evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (3)] The Haar-wavelet notation in Eq. (3) is underspecified: the filter bank Hs,k and the normalization Ns are not defined. Please define the wavelet scales and directions explicitly so that the loss is reproducible.
  2. [Table 1] The table uses the same column name 'FG MIoU' twice but with opposite arrows (higher-is-better for foreground, lower-is-better for background). Please rename the background column (e.g., 'BG residue MIoU') or otherwise clarify the semantics to avoid confusion.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Evan with additional inpainting' should be 'Even with additional inpainting'.
  4. [Table 4 caption] The caption statement 'SAD is presented divided by 10−3' is ambiguous. Please clarify the scaling convention, e.g., 'SAD values are multiplied by 10^3' or provide the unit explicitly.
  5. [Sec. 4.1] The qualitative comparisons with Text2Layer and LayerDiff use examples taken from their respective papers, which means the prompts and generation settings are not identical to those used for the quantitative evaluation. Please label these as illustrative and note that a controlled comparison is not provided.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The proposed FG-MIoU metric is self-fulfilling: it scores the layers with the same GroundingDINO/SAM pipeline that defines their alpha mask.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 4.1 'Quantitative Comparisons' (FG-MIoU definition); Sec. 3.2 'Foreground Determination Stage']
    "Additionally, we propose a novel FG-MIoU score to assess the quality of both foreground and background layers. The FG-MIoU score is calculated as follows: for each layer, we first detect a foreground bounding box using a foreground prompt and GroundingDINO [20]. From the bounding box, we estimate a semantic mask using SAM [15] and calculate the Mean Intersection over Union (MIoU) between the semantic mask and the layer."

    FG-MIoU is computed on layers whose opaque content is copied from the initial composite at exactly the alpha mask produced by the same detector/segmenter. Section 3.2 builds the mask with 'Grounding DINO' and 'SAM'; HFA 'directly copy[s] pixel values from Ci for ... α = 1 and α = 0'. Re-detecting the same mask with the same GroundingDINO/SAM therefore gives high IoU by construction (0.87 vs 0.62). The background variant is also self-fulfilling: alpha=0 regions are outside the detected foreground, so a foreground detector should not find objects there. This is a confounded metric, not independent evidence that decomposition is better.

full rationale

The central derivation chain, generate a composite with an off-the-shelf model and then decompose it with trained FBDD/HFA modules, is not circular: FBDD and HFA are trained on 20,000 synthetic composites and evaluated on separate synthetic test data and real images, and the paper also reports external FID, KID, CLIP, and user-study evidence. The concrete circularity is the proposed FG-MIoU metric, which reuses the exact GroundingDINO+SAM recipe that produced the alpha mask defining the layers. Because the HFA module copies pixels from the initial composite wherever alpha is 0 or 1, the layer content in opaque regions is literally the mask region produced by that detector/segmenter, so re-detecting it with the same models inflates IoU by construction. This affects a supporting evaluation metric rather than the trained decomposition itself. Separately, the comparison against LayerDiffuse is confounded by different base generators (SDXL vs SD1.5), but that is an evaluation-design issue, not a circular derivation. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the alpha-prediction dependency in its Limitations, which is a real external-input assumption rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the alpha composition model, the reliability of off-the-shelf detection and matting tools, and the representativeness of the training data. The only explicit hand-tuned parameters are the BAN loss weight and the Haar scales. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • BAN loss weight lambda = 0.2
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (2); balances the MSE term and the Haar high-frequency loss, directly affecting the background layer quality.
  • Haar scale levels s = {0,1,2}
    Chosen for the high-frequency error loss in Eq. (3); affects how textures are aligned in the BAN output.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Linear alpha compositing model C = alpha*F + (1-alpha)*B
    Eq. (1); the entire decomposition is defined by this model, which excludes shadows, reflections, and global lighting effects. The paper notes shadows as a limitation.
  • domain assumption The off-the-shelf generative model produces a composite image containing the foreground object described by the foreground prompt
    The foreground determination stage relies on detecting the foreground object in the generated image; if the object is absent, the pipeline cannot proceed.
  • domain assumption Automated alpha mask estimation is accurate
    Stated in the Limitations: the layering stage conditions on this mask, and inaccurate masks compromise layer quality.
  • domain assumption MAGICK and BG-20k are representative foreground and background distributions
    Used for training and evaluation; if these datasets are biased, the evaluation and the trained model inherit that bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LayeringDiff: Layered Image Synthesis via Generation, then Disassembly with Generative Knowledge." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UR3QX3YY

@misc{pith2026250101197,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LayeringDiff: Layered Image Synthesis via Generation, then Disassembly with Generative Knowledge},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UR3QX3YY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01197}
}
read the original abstract

Layers have become indispensable tools for professional artists, allowing them to build a hierarchical structure that enables independent control over individual visual elements. In this paper, we propose LayeringDiff, a novel pipeline for the synthesis of layered images, which begins by generating a composite image using an off-the-shelf image generative model, followed by disassembling the image into its constituent foreground and background layers. By extracting layers from a composite image, rather than generating them from scratch, LayeringDiff bypasses the need for large-scale training to develop generative capabilities for individual layers. Furthermore, by utilizing a pretrained off-the-shelf generative model, our method can produce diverse contents and object scales in synthesized layers. For effective layer decomposition, we adapt a large-scale pretrained generative prior to estimate foreground and background layers. We also propose high-frequency alignment modules to refine the fine-details of the estimated layers. Our comprehensive experiments demonstrate that our approach effectively synthesizes layered images and supports various practical applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01197 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of LayeringDiff. From an input text prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Decomposed layers by the FBDD module may suffer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Qualitative comparison of layered images generated by the three models of LayerDiffuse [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of layered images generated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Application 1: multi-layered image synthesis. Starting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Application 2: layer decomposition on real-world image. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The chemical DNA of the Magellanic Clouds VI. Origin and evolution of neutron-capture elements in the SMC

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    SMC neutron-capture abundance patterns require both an enhanced delayed r-process at low metallicity and a top-lighter IMF relative to Kroupa (2001).

  2. PrismLayers: Open Data for High-Quality Multi-Layer Transparent Image Generative Models

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new open dataset and synthesis pipeline for high-quality multi-layer transparent images, plus a fine-tuned ART+ model that users preferred over the original ART in about 60 percent of comparisons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Text2live: Text-driven layered image and video editing

    Omer Bar-Tal, Dolev Ofri-Amar, Rafail Fridman, Yoni Kas- ten, and Tali Dekel. Text2live: Text-driven layered image and video editing. In European conference on computer vision , pages 707–723. Springer, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Demystifying mmd gans

    Mikołaj Bi ´nkowski, Danica J Sutherland, Michael Arbel, and Arthur Gretton. Demystifying mmd gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01401, 2018. 7

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    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. 4, 7, 8

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Pp-matting: high-accuracy natural image matting

    Guowei Chen, Yi Liu, Jian Wang, Juncai Peng, Yuying Hao, Lutao Chu, Shiyu Tang, Zewu Wu, Zeyu Chen, Zhiliang Yu, et al. Pp-matting: high-accuracy natural image matting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.09433, 2022. 2

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 34:8780–8794, 2021. 1

    2021

  6. [6]

    f, b, alpha matting

    Marco Forte and Franc ¸ois Piti´e. f, b, alpha matting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07711, 2020. 2, 7, 8

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Fast multi-level foreground estimation

    Thomas Germer, Tobias Uelwer, Stefan Conrad, and Ste- fan Harmeling. Fast multi-level foreground estimation. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 1104–1111. IEEE, 2021. 2, 7, 8

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation met- ric for image captioning

    Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation met- ric for image captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08718,

    arXiv

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    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. 7

    2017

  2. [10]

    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. 1

    2020

  3. [11]

    Context-aware image matting for si- multaneous foreground and alpha estimation

    Qiqi Hou and Feng Liu. Context-aware image matting for si- multaneous foreground and alpha estimation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 4130–4139, 2019. 2

    2019

  4. [12]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Diffusion for natural image matting

    Yihan Hu, Yiheng Lin, Wei Wang, Yao Zhao, Yunchao Wei, and Humphrey Shi. Diffusion for natural image matting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05915, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Layerdiff: Exploring text-guided multi-layered composable image synthesis via layer-collaborative diffu- sion model

    Runhui Huang, Kaixin Cai, Jianhua Han, Xiaodan Liang, Renjing Pei, Guansong Lu, Songcen Xu, Wei Zhang, and Hang Xu. Layerdiff: Exploring text-guided multi-layered composable image synthesis via layer-collaborative diffu- sion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11929 , 2024. 1, 2, 5, 7

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023. 3, 7

    2023

  8. [16]

    A closed-form solution to natural image matting

    Anat Levin, Dani Lischinski, and Yair Weiss. A closed-form solution to natural image matting. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 30(2):228–242,

  9. [17]

    Bridging composite and real: towards end-to-end deep image matting

    Jizhizi Li, Jing Zhang, Stephen J Maybank, and Dacheng Tao. Bridging composite and real: towards end-to-end deep image matting. International Journal of Computer Vision , 130(2):246–266, 2022. 4, 8

    2022

  10. [18]

    Matting anything

    Jiachen Li, Jitesh Jain, and Humphrey Shi. Matting anything. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05399, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  11. [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

  12. [20]

    Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection

    Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Chunyuan Li, Jianwei Yang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, et al. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05499, 2023. 3, 7

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Alexander Quinn Nichol and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8162–8171. PMLR,

  14. [22]

    Matteformer: Transformer-based image mat- ting via prior-tokens

    GyuTae Park, SungJoon Son, JaeYoung Yoo, SeHo Kim, and Nojun Kwak. Matteformer: Transformer-based image mat- ting via prior-tokens. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11696–11706, 2022. 2

    2022

  15. [23]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 1 (2):3, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    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. 2, 3, 4, 5

    2022

  18. [26]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models

    Tim Salimans and Jonathan Ho. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00512, 2022. 4

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Real-time single image and video super-resolution using an efficient sub-pixel convolutional neural network

    Wenzhe Shi, Jose Caballero, Ferenc Husz ´ar, Johannes Totz, Andrew P Aitken, Rob Bishop, Daniel Rueckert, and Zehan Wang. Real-time single image and video super-resolution using an efficient sub-pixel convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on compu...

    2016

  21. [29]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International confer- ence on machine learning, pages 2256–2265. PMLR, 2015. 1

    2015

  22. [30]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020. 1

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Learning-based sampling for natural image matting

    Jingwei Tang, Yagiz Aksoy, Cengiz Oztireli, Markus Gross, and Tunc Ozan Aydin. Learning-based sampling for natural image matting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3055– 3063, 2019. 2

    2019

  25. [33]

    Deep image matting

    Ning Xu, Brian Price, Scott Cohen, and Thomas Huang. Deep image matting. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2970– 2979, 2017. 2, 4, 8

    2017

  26. [34]

    Vitmatte: Boosting image matting with pre- trained plain vision transformers

    Jingfeng Yao, Xinggang Wang, Shusheng Yang, and Baoyuan Wang. Vitmatte: Boosting image matting with pre- trained plain vision transformers. Information Fusion, 103: 102091, 2024. 2, 3, 7

    2024

  27. [35]

    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. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    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. 3

    2023

  29. [37]

    Text2layer: Layered image generation using latent diffusion model

    Xinyang Zhang, Wentian Zhao, Xin Lu, and Jeff Chien. Text2layer: Layered image generation using latent diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09781, 2023. 1, 2, 5, 7 10

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.