A Comprehensive Review on Noise Control of Diffusion Model

Jiedong Lang; Shuyu Huang; Xintong Ding; Yunfei Gao; Zhehao Guo

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

A Comprehensive Review on Noise Control of Diffusion Model

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

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

Pith's one-line read Noise schedule choice is the first-order control on diffusion model output quality, and the optimal schedule depends on resolution, training stage, and parameter values.

desk verdict Survey of diffusion noise schedules with no new results and a few transcription errors; the central claim is true but the paper is not reliable as a standalone reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04669 v1 pith:W6MVBV46 submitted 2025-02-07 cs.LG cs.AI

Zhehao Guo , Jiedong Lang , Shuyu Huang , Yunfei Gao , Xintong Ding This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords diffusionmodelsnoisescheduleimagegenerationgenerativecontrolsamplingqualitylearnedcosine

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 review argues that the noise schedule of a diffusion model — the per-step sequence that decides how fast Gaussian noise is injected during training and removed during sampling — is a decisive factor in how well the model generates images. It collects nine schedule families, explains the mechanism behind each, and argues that no single schedule is universally best: different schedules fit different image resolutions, different stages of the diffusion process, and different parameter settings. A reader should care because the noise schedule is a comparatively cheap knob that affects both training cost and sample quality, and the review maps which options exist and which trade-offs each one makes. The contribution is descriptive — a catalogue and interpretation — rather than an experimental benchmark.

What carries the argument

The central object is the noise schedule $\{\beta_t\}_{t=1}^T$, the sequence of per-timestep variances (equivalently the cumulative noise levels $\bar\alpha_t$) that governs how quickly information is destroyed during the forward diffusion process and how hard the reverse denoiser must work. The paper carries the argument through the reparameterized forward equation $x_t = \sqrt{\bar\alpha_t} x_0 + \sqrt{1-\bar\alpha_t}\epsilon$, which ties the schedule directly to the simplified denoising loss, and through schedule-specific formulas for $\beta_t$ or $\bar\alpha_t$ that each family uses. For the learned schedule, the mechanism is a monotonic neural network $\gamma_\eta(t)$ whose output sets the variance via $\sigma_t^2 = \mathrm{sigmoid}(\gamma_\eta(t))$, giving an explicit signal-to-noise ratio $SNR(t)=\exp(-\gamma_\eta(t))$ that the network can optimize.

What would settle it

Train the same diffusion backbone on the same data at multiple resolutions with linear, cosine, sigmoid, and learned schedules, then compare sample quality (for example FID) and convergence time; if schedule choice makes a negligible difference across all settings, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the choice of an appropriate noise schedule plays a crucial role in determining the quality of generated images, making it a critical parameter in diffusion-based image synthesis. It surveys nine schedule designs — linear, Fibonacci, cosine, sigmoid, exponential, Cauchy, Laplace, logistic, and a learned monotonic-neural-network schedule — and shows how each changes the rate of noise injection over timesteps. It further claims that the best schedule depends on context: the same schedule applied at different resolutions can cause information loss and poor reconstruction, sigmoid schedules are more stable than cosine at high resolution, and small parameter changes within one schedule can substantially change performance. Consequently, the paper concludes that practitioners should treat schedule selection and parameter tuning as part of the diffusion-model design problem rather than as a fixed default.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's account of noise schedules is only as trustworthy as its transcriptions of the original papers' formulas, because the authors run no experiments and re-derive none of the schedules themselves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Matching the noise schedule to the target image resolution should avoid the poor reconstruction and information loss that a one-size-fits-all schedule produces.
Researchers comparing diffusion models should report the schedule and its parameters alongside the architecture, since schedule choice is a first-order performance variable.
Learned monotonic schedules are a plausible replacement for handcrafted ones, with the claimed benefit of faster and more stable training through lower-variance estimates.
Small changes in schedule hyperparameters, such as the cosine offset or sigmoid temperature, can produce large quality differences, so schedule tuning deserves the same attention as other hyperparameters.
Because no schedule is universally optimal, schedule selection should be treated as a task-dependent step rather than a fixed default in diffusion pipelines.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that schedule choice interacts with other diffusion components, such as number of sampling steps, guidance strength, and network capacity; if the schedule is load-bearing, then optimal settings for those components may shift when the schedule changes.
A natural testable extension is a resolution-sweep benchmark that measures the performance gap between cosine and sigmoid schedules; the paper's claim predicts the gap widens as resolution increases.
The heavy-tailed schedules (Cauchy and Laplace) suggest a design principle the paper does not fully state: concentrating noise injection in a narrow timestep window can save compute, which could be useful in resource-constrained training regimes.
The learned-schedule result points toward automatic schedule discovery: if monotonic networks reliably beat handcrafted schedules, then manual schedule design may eventually become unnecessary.

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

Two things to know: this is a review, not a research paper, and it has no new results; and it has a real error in a core equation that makes me hesitant to point anyone at it without warnings. The paper's central claim—that noise schedule choice matters for diffusion quality—is correct, but it's already well established in the literature cited here.

What it does well: it gathers the common schedules (linear, cosine, sigmoid, exponential, Cauchy, Laplace, logistic, learned) into one place, and the prose descriptions of each schedule's intended behavior are broadly accurate. A newcomer could get a reasonable first orientation from Sections II and III. The organization is clear.

The soft spots: Eq. (5) defines the forward step as xt = sqrt(1-beta_t) xt-1 + sqrt(1-beta_t) epsilon, but Eq. (1) defines the variance as beta_t I. The noise coefficient should be sqrt(beta_t), not sqrt(1-beta_t). That's an internal inconsistency in a core equation; a reader copying it would get the wrong process. Section III-A2 attributes a Fibonacci noise schedule to WaveGrad [22], but WaveGrad's paper uses a conventional linear schedule and doesn't appear to define any Fibonacci recurrence. If that attribution is wrong, the description is unmoored. Table 1's parameter settings for cosine and sigmoid (s, e, tau) don't map cleanly to Eqs. (8)–(9), so it's hard to reproduce the comparison. There are also padding citations (blockchain, SLAM) that have nothing to do with noise schedules, which suggests the reference list wasn't carefully filtered. No experiments, no code, no re-derivation, so the paper's only value is as a digest—and a digest that needs correction in its core equations isn't trustworthy as-is.

Who is it for? A student who wants a first map of the noise-schedule landscape might get something, but they'd have to check every formula against the original papers. I wouldn't cite it, and I wouldn't send it to a serious referee in its current state. The right path is to fix the equation error, verify the WaveGrad attribution, and clean up the table parameterization; then it might be a passable tutorial.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a short survey of noise schedules for diffusion models. It introduces the forward and reverse processes, the simplified training loss, and then catalogs eight named noise schedules (linear, Fibonacci, cosine, sigmoid, exponential, Cauchy, Laplace, logistic) plus a learned monotonic-neural-network schedule, with equations for each. The paper closes by arguing that noise-schedule choice is a critical determinant of sample quality, that no single schedule is universally optimal, and that schedule performance depends on image resolution, training stage, and parameter settings, as illustrated by a table of quantitative scores across resolutions.

Significance. The topic is timely and the survey is readable, and the paper assembles in one place a useful list of schedule families with citations to the primary literature. The central claim that noise-schedule choice strongly affects diffusion-model quality is plausible and independently supported by the cited literature, so the lack of new experiments is not itself a defect for a review paper. The paper's value as a reference, however, depends on the faithfulness of its transcriptions of formulas and attributions. At present, an internal inconsistency in the core forward-process equation, a likely misattributed Fibonacci schedule, and a parameter-mapping gap in the comparison table mean that readers cannot rely on the survey without checking every cited source. These issues are fixable, but they are load-bearing for a survey whose main contribution is reliable organization of existing results.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eq. (5)] The forward-process update is written as x_t = sqrt(1 - beta_t) x_{t-1} + sqrt(1 - beta_t) epsilon_{t-1}, but Eq. (1) defines q(x_t | x_{t-1}) = N(x_t; sqrt(1 - beta_t) x_{t-1}, beta_t I), which requires the noise coefficient to be sqrt(beta_t), not sqrt(1 - beta_t). As printed, the two defining equations of the forward process are inconsistent, and Eq. (5) would not produce the variance beta_t I nor support the reparameterization leading to Eq. (14). This is a core equation of the survey and must be corrected.
[Section III-A2] The Fibonacci noise schedule is attributed to WaveGrad [22], but the cited WaveGrad paper uses a conventional linear variance schedule and does not appear to define a Fibonacci recurrence beta_n = beta_{n-1} + beta_{n-2}. Since the section's only citation for this schedule is [22], the attribution is unverifiable as stated. The authors should either cite the actual source or remove the attribution and clearly label the schedule as an illustrative construction.
[Section III-A8, Eq. (13)] The logistic schedule is written as alpha_bar_t = 1 / (1 + e^{-k(t - t0)}), which is an increasing function of t with no dependence on the total number of steps T. In the alpha_bar parameterization used elsewhere in the paper, alpha_bar_t should decrease from near 1 to near 0 as t goes from 1 to T. The text also says the logistic schedule 'introduces noise slowly at the beginning, followed by a rapid increase,' which describes beta_t or a decreasing alpha_bar_t, not the increasing function in Eq. (13). Please clarify whether Eq. (13) defines alpha_bar_t or beta_t, and specify how k and t0 are normalized with respect to T.
[Table I] The parameter values in Table I, such as cosine (s=0, e=1, tau=1) and sigmoid (s=-3, e=3, tau=0.9), do not map cleanly to the formulas in Eqs. (8) and (9). Eq. (8) for the cosine schedule contains only the parameter s, while Eq. (9) for the sigmoid schedule contains s, e, and tau but does not define how those parameters produce the tabulated gamma(t) entries. Without an explicit mapping from row parameters to the schedule formulas, the performance comparison in Table I cannot be reproduced, and it is unclear whether the numbers come from [18], [24], or [33].

minor comments (4)

[Section III-A4] In the text after Eq. (9), 's represents the starting point of the sigmoid function’s range, while t denotes its endpoint' should read 'e denotes its endpoint,' since t is the timestep variable throughout the paper.
[Section III-A7] The Laplace distribution schedule is presented only as the probability density function in Eq. (12), with no definition of how f(t; mu, b) maps to beta_t or alpha_bar_t and no citation for its use as a noise schedule. Please provide the mapping and a source.
[Section III-A8] There is a typo in 'as t approachs T,' and the phrase 'the noise value varies across different types of noise schedules' following Eq. (13) would benefit from a reference to Figure 2, which appears earlier in the paper.
[Section II-A3] The phrase 'The posterior q(x1:T | x0) is closed to p_theta(x1:T | x0)' should read 'is close to,' and 'as known as' should be 'also known as.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a literature survey whose claims are supported by external citations, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper makes no original derivation and presents no fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The central claim that noise-schedule choice affects output quality is asserted with citations to external works ([8]-[11], [18], [21], [24]) and is not derived from the paper's own definitions. Sections II and III reproduce standard diffusion-model equations; Eq. (5) contains a likely typo in the noise coefficient (sqrt(1-beta_t) instead of sqrt(beta_t)), and the attribution of a Fibonacci schedule to WaveGrad [22] is questionable, but these are transcription or reliability concerns, not circular reductions. The review contains self-citations ([6], [7], [29]-[31]) to the authors' blockchain and SLAM work, but these are unrelated and are not load-bearing for any claim about noise schedules. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The survey's conclusions are therefore not circular, although their accuracy depends on the fidelity of the transcription of the cited sources.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new parameter fits or entities. Its central claim rests on cited literature, and the accuracy of the formulas is an unverified assumption. The hand-set initial values for the Fibonacci schedule and the unspecified Cauchy constant are the only free parameters introduced in the text.

free parameters (2)

Fibonacci initial beta values beta_0=1e-6, beta_1=2e-6 = 1e-6 and 2e-6
Chosen by hand in Section III-A2 to seed the recurrence; no justification from data is given.
Cauchy schedule scale constant
Eq. (11) multiplies f_Cauchy(t) by an unspecified constant, so the schedule is not fully defined.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Noise schedule selection materially affects sampling and training quality.
The paper's central claim is accepted from cited papers [8]-[11], [18] and is not demonstrated in this work.
standard math The forward process is Gaussian Markov with transition q(xt|xt-1) = N(sqrt(1-beta_t)x_{t-1}, beta_t I), and the reparameterization xt = sqrt(alpha_bar_t) x0 + sqrt(1-alpha_bar_t) epsilon holds.
Section II-A adopts the DDPM formulation [16]; the review's schedule descriptions inherit these assumptions.
domain assumption The schedules in Section III are accurately transcribed from their cited sources.
The paper does not re-derive or empirically validate the formulas; if transcription errors such as Eq. (5) are present, the descriptions may not match the original proposals.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Review on Noise Control of Diffusion Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6MVBV46

@misc{pith2026250204669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Review on Noise Control of Diffusion Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6MVBV46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04669}
}

read the original abstract

Diffusion models have recently emerged as powerful generative frameworks for producing high-quality images. A pivotal component of these models is the noise schedule, which governs the rate of noise injection during the diffusion process. Since the noise schedule substantially influences sampling quality and training quality, understanding its design and implications is crucial. In this discussion, various noise schedules are examined, and their distinguishing features and performance characteristics are highlighted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04669 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** flexibility and scalability, particularly when dealing with highdimensional data spaces. Given the limitations of existing generative models, diffusion models have emerged as the most prominent approach in AI-driven image generation, owing to their greater flexibility and fewer constraints. The introduction of diffusion models has significantly enhanced image generation and editing capabilities, enabling high-qua… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The noise control as time step increases under different types of noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[22]

Wavegrad: Estimating gradients for waveform generation,

N. Chen, Y . Zhang, H. Zen, R. J. Weiss, M. Norouzi, and W. Chan, “Wavegrad: Estimating gradients for waveform generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.00713, 2020

arXiv 2009
[18]

On the importance of noise scheduling for diffusion models,

T. Chen, “On the importance of noise scheduling for diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10972 , 2023

arXiv 2023
[24]

Scalable adaptive computation for iterative generation,

A. Jabri, D. Fleet, and T. Chen, “Scalable adaptive computation for iterative generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11972 , 2022

arXiv 2022
[33]

Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models,

T. Karras, M. Aittala, T. Aila, and S. Laine, “Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models,” Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 26 565–26 577, 2022

2022
[1]

Machine learning for human emotion recognition: a comprehensive review,

E. M. Younis, S. Mohsen, E. H. Houssein, and O. A. S. Ibrahim, “Machine learning for human emotion recognition: a comprehensive review,” Neural Computing and Applications , pp. 1–47, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,

J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan, and S. Ganguli, “Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2015, pp. 2256–2265

2015
[3]

Visual instruction tuning,

H. Liu, C. Li, Q. Wu, and Y . J. Lee, “Visual instruction tuning,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 36, 2024

2024
[4]

Diffusion models in vision: A survey,

F.-A. Croitoru, V . Hondru, R. T. Ionescu, and M. Shah, “Diffusion models in vision: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 10 850–10 869, 2023

2023

Show all 33 references

[5]

Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications,

L. Yang, Z. Zhang, Y . Song, S. Hong, R. Xu, Y . Zhao, W. Zhang, B. Cui, and M.-H. Yang, “Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1–39, 2023

2023
[6]

Unveiling decentraliza- tion: A comprehensive review of technologies, comparison, chal- lenges in bitcoin, ethereum, and solana blockchain,

H. Song, Y . Wei, Z. Qu, and W. Wang, “Unveiling decentraliza- tion: A comprehensive review of technologies, comparison, chal- lenges in bitcoin, ethereum, and solana blockchain,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04841, 2024

2024 arXiv
[7]

Advancing blockchain scalability: An introduction to layer 1 and layer 2 solutions,

H. Song, Z. Qu, and Y . Wei, “Advancing blockchain scalability: An introduction to layer 1 and layer 2 solutions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13855, 2024

2024 arXiv
[8]

simple diffusion: End-to- end diffusion for high resolution images,

E. Hoogeboom, J. Heek, and T. Salimans, “simple diffusion: End-to- end diffusion for high resolution images,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 13 213–13 232

2023
[9]

Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,

L. Zhang, A. Rao, and M. Agrawala, “Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 3836–3847

2023
[10]

Zero- shot image-to-image translation,

G. Parmar, K. Kumar Singh, R. Zhang, Y . Li, J. Lu, and J.-Y . Zhu, “Zero- shot image-to-image translation,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, 2023, pp. 1–11

2023
[11]

Muse: Text-to- image generation via masked generative transformers,

H. Chang, H. Zhang, J. Barber, A. Maschinot, J. Lezama, L. Jiang, M.-H. Yang, K. Murphy, W. T. Freeman, M. Rubinstein et al., “Muse: Text-to- image generation via masked generative transformers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00704, 2023

2023 arXiv
[12]

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

C. Saharia, W. Chan, S. Saxena, L. Li, J. Whang, E. L. Denton, K. Ghasemipour, R. Gontijo Lopes, B. Karagol Ayan, T. Salimans et al., “Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 35, ...

2022
[13]

Segment everything everywhere all at once,

X. Zou, J. Yang, H. Zhang, F. Li, L. Li, J. Wang, L. Wang, J. Gao, and Y . J. Lee, “Segment everything everywhere all at once,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

2024
[14]

Text2video-zero: Text-to-image diffusion models are zero-shot video generators,

L. Khachatryan, A. Movsisyan, V . Tadevosyan, R. Henschel, Z. Wang, S. Navasardyan, and H. Shi, “Text2video-zero: Text-to-image diffusion models are zero-shot video generators,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 15 954–15 964

2023
[15]

Emergent correspondence from image diffusion,

L. Tang, M. Jia, Q. Wang, C. P. Phoo, and B. Hariharan, “Emergent correspondence from image diffusion,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 1363–1389, 2023

2023
[16]

Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020

2020
[17]

Attend-and- excite: Attention-based semantic guidance for text-to-image diffusion models,

H. Chefer, Y . Alaluf, Y . Vinker, L. Wolf, and D. Cohen-Or, “Attend-and- excite: Attention-based semantic guidance for text-to-image diffusion models,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1–10, 2023

2023
[19]

Visual chatgpt: Talking, drawing and editing with visual foundation models,

C. Wu, S. Yin, W. Qi, X. Wang, Z. Tang, and N. Duan, “Visual chatgpt: Talking, drawing and editing with visual foundation models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04671, 2023

2023 arXiv
[20]

Classifier-free diffusion guidance,

J. Ho and T. Salimans, “Classifier-free diffusion guidance,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022

2022 arXiv
[21]

Align your steps: Optimizing sam- pling schedules in diffusion models,

A. Sabour, S. Fidler, and K. Kreis, “Align your steps: Optimizing sam- pling schedules in diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14507 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[23]

Improved denoising diffusion probabilis- tic models,

A. Q. Nichol and P. Dhariwal, “Improved denoising diffusion probabilis- tic models,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 8162–8171

2021
[25]

Improved noise schedule for diffusion training,

T. Hang and S. Gu, “Improved noise schedule for diffusion training,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03297 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[26]

Schedule your edit: A simple yet effective diffu- sion noise schedule for image editing,

H. Lin, M. Wang, J. Wang, W. An, Y . Chen, Y . Liu, F. Tian, G. Dai, J. Wang, and Q. Wang, “Schedule your edit: A simple yet effective diffu- sion noise schedule for image editing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18756, 2024

2024 arXiv
[27]

Variational diffusion models,

D. Kingma, T. Salimans, B. Poole, and J. Ho, “Variational diffusion models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 34, pp. 21 696–21 707, 2021

2021
[28]

Diffusion models with learned adaptive noise,

S. S. Sahoo, A. Gokaslan, C. De Sa, and V . Kuleshov, “Diffusion models with learned adaptive noise,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13236 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[29]

Bundledslam: An accurate visual slam system using multiple cameras,

H. Song, C. Liu, and H. Dai, “Bundledslam: An accurate visual slam system using multiple cameras,” in2024 IEEE 7th Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC) , vol. 7, 2024, pp. 106–111

2024
[30]

Advancements in translation accuracy for stereo visual-inertial initialization,

H. Song, Z. Qu, Z. Zhang, Z. Ye, and C. Liu, “Advancements in translation accuracy for stereo visual-inertial initialization,” in 2024 9th Asia-Pacific Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (ACIRS), 2024, pp. 210–215

2024
[31]

Visual slam with 3d gaussian primitives and depth priors enabling novel view synthesis,

Z. Qu, Z. Zhang, C. Liu, and J. Yin, “Visual slam with 3d gaussian primitives and depth priors enabling novel view synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05635, 2024

2024 arXiv
[32]

A generalist framework for panoptic segmentation of images and videos,

T. Chen, L. Li, S. Saxena, G. Hinton, and D. J. Fleet, “A generalist framework for panoptic segmentation of images and videos,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2023, pp. 909–919

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Wavegrad: Estimating gradients for waveform generation,

N. Chen, Y . Zhang, H. Zen, R. J. Weiss, M. Norouzi, and W. Chan, “Wavegrad: Estimating gradients for waveform generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.00713, 2020

arXiv 2009

[2] [18]

On the importance of noise scheduling for diffusion models,

T. Chen, “On the importance of noise scheduling for diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10972 , 2023

arXiv 2023

[3] [24]

Scalable adaptive computation for iterative generation,

A. Jabri, D. Fleet, and T. Chen, “Scalable adaptive computation for iterative generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11972 , 2022

arXiv 2022

[4] [33]

Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models,

T. Karras, M. Aittala, T. Aila, and S. Laine, “Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models,” Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 26 565–26 577, 2022

2022

[5] [1]

Machine learning for human emotion recognition: a comprehensive review,

E. M. Younis, S. Mohsen, E. H. Houssein, and O. A. S. Ibrahim, “Machine learning for human emotion recognition: a comprehensive review,” Neural Computing and Applications , pp. 1–47, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [2]

Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,

J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan, and S. Ganguli, “Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2015, pp. 2256–2265

2015

[7] [3]

Visual instruction tuning,

H. Liu, C. Li, Q. Wu, and Y . J. Lee, “Visual instruction tuning,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 36, 2024

2024

[8] [4]

Diffusion models in vision: A survey,

F.-A. Croitoru, V . Hondru, R. T. Ionescu, and M. Shah, “Diffusion models in vision: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 10 850–10 869, 2023

2023