Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Dataset Augmentation by Mixing Visual Concepts

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that fine-tuning a diffusion model on real images and conditioning it with CLIP caption embeddings mixed by the MVC procedure yields synthetic augmentations that outperform AutoAugment and RandAugment for classification…

desk verdict Plausible diffusion-augmentation recipe with a nice trick, but the paper never isolates that trick from fine-tuning, so the headline claim is under-supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15358 v1 pith:YD6LYNMH submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CV

Abdullah Al Rahat , Hemanth Venkateswara This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords datasetaugmentationdiffusionmodelsCLIPembeddingstext-to-imagegenerationmodelfine-tuningimageclassificationmedical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that a diffusion model can be turned into a reliable dataset augmenter by fine-tuning it on real images while conditioning generation on novel text embeddings created by mixing the captions of same-class images. The proposed procedure, Mixing Visual Concepts (MVC), takes CLIP text embeddings of image captions and produces new embeddings by swapping rows and individual elements between randomly sampled same-class embeddings; these new embeddings are used as text prompts alongside an image-conditioning embedding from a real image. The authors report that augmenting training sets this way improves classification accuracy over AutoAugment, RandAugment, and Fast AutoAugment on CIFAR-10/100, their reduced versions, Tiny ImageNet, Caltech101, and a brain-tumor MRI dataset, with the largest gains on small and medical datasets. If correct, this gives a way to create large, in-domain synthetic training sets with controllable diversity and no extra human annotation.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Mixing Visual Concepts (MVC) procedure (Algorithm 1). For each class, captions are generated from real images with a vision-language model and embedded by CLIP into matrices $e \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$, where $m$ is the number of tokens and $d$ the per-token dimension. To create one new text embedding, MVC starts with a randomly sampled class embedding and performs $P$ rounds of coarse mixing—replacing a contiguous block of rows with rows from another randomly sampled class embedding—and $Q$ rounds of fine mixing—replacing a slice of columns within one row with the corresponding slice from another embedding. Each mixed embedding is concatenated with the null-text embedding for classifier-free guidance. During fine-tuning and sampling, this mixed text embedding $e_T$ and an image embedding $e_I$ of a real same-class image are fed to the U-Net of a latent diffusion model, whose objective is to predict the added noise (Equations 4 and 5). The role of MVC is to generate unlimited novel text conditions that stay close to the caption manifold of the class, so generated images are diverse but in-domain.

What would settle it

Compare the images generated with MVC-mixed text embeddings against those generated with the same fine-tuned model using the original unmixed CLIP caption embeddings, and measure distributional similarity to the real training set, for example with FID or a classifier's confidence on real versus generated samples. If the mixed embeddings yield no improvement in similarity or downstream accuracy over unmixed captions, the central claim that mixing is what creates in-domain diversity would fail; a positive result would also confirm that the reported gains are not solely from fine-tuning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the gap between real and synthetic training images—the domain discrepancy that makes diffusion-generated data unreliable for classification—can be bridged by adapting the generation pipeline to the target data. Concretely, the authors fine-tune a pre-trained Stable Diffusion U-Net so that, in addition to a text embedding, it takes an image embedding of a randomly selected real same-class image, concatenated to the noisy latent. At the same time, they replace user-written prompts with MVC embeddings obtained by mixing rows and columns of CLIP embeddings of BLIP-2 captions of the class's real images. This joint conditioning, they argue, yields synthetic images that are novel yet stay inside the class's visual distribution, and they report consistent accuracy improvements over AutoAugment and RandAugment across coarse, fine-grained, and medical benchmarks: an average of +3.29 percentage points over the baseline, and +1.70, +1.77, and +2.11 percentage points over Fast AutoAugment, AutoAugment, and RandAugment respectively on CIFAR-10/100.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that swapping pieces of caption embeddings from the same class produces text prompts that, combined with a real image from that class, guide the fine-tuned diffusion model to make new images that stay inside the class; the paper does not measure how far generated images drift from the real data or isolate the mixing step from fine-tuning alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On reduced CIFAR-10/100, adding MVC synthetic images improves accuracy by up to 6.4 percentage points over the no-augmentation baseline and consistently outperforms Fast AutoAugment, AutoAugment, and RandAugment, with average gains of +1.70, +1.77, and +2.11 percentage points respectively.
  • On Caltech101, MVC-augmented training improves ResNet50, EfficientNet-b0, and ViT-16 by roughly +0.7 to +1.1 points over AutoAugment and RandAugment, despite the dataset's class imbalance.
  • On the brain-tumor MRI dataset, MVC augmentation raises test accuracy by +1.1 to +1.9 points over AutoAugment and RandAugment, suggesting the approach suits specialized medical domains where pre-trained diffusion models deviate from the target domain.
  • Fine-tuning the diffusion model is necessary: synthetic data from a pre-trained Stable Diffusion model adds only +0.8 point on average, while data from the fine-tuned model adds +1.38 points.
  • Two-phase training—first on real plus synthetic data, then fine-tuning on real data only—is the best way to integrate synthetic images; directly combining them degrades accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to replace row and element swapping with convex combinations or small noise in CLIP embedding space; if the gains persist, the mechanism is local smoothness of the embedding manifold rather than the specific block-swap operation.
  • The method transfers in principle to other conditioning embeddings, such as audio, video, or point-cloud tokens, whenever a frozen encoder produces a fixed-length token embedding; evaluating MVC-style mixing there would show whether the idea is general or specific to CLIP text tokens.
  • The largest gains appear in reduced and medical datasets, so the practical value is probably in few-shot or annotation-scarce regimes; a direct comparison on a fixed low-data budget, such as 100 or 500 images per class, would sharpen this.
  • An open question the paper leaves implicit is what the mixing rates $P$ and $Q$ do to the trade-off between diversity and domain fidelity; sweeping those parameters with a distributional metric would turn a qualitative knob into a tunable hyperparameter.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dataset augmentation method built on fine-tuning a Stable Diffusion model with both image conditioning (an embedding of a real same-class image) and text conditioning obtained by a new procedure, Mixing Visual Concepts (MVC). In MVC, CLIP embeddings of per-image captions are randomly modified by replacing rows and row-segments with corresponding entries from other same-class caption embeddings, producing a large pool of novel text embeddings. These embeddings, together with image conditioning, are used to fine-tune the SD U-Net and then to generate synthetic images for downstream classification. Experiments on CIFAR-10/CIFAR-100 and their reduced versions, Tiny ImageNet, Caltech101, and a Brain Tumor MRI dataset report accuracy gains over AutoAugment, RandAugment, and Fast AutoAugment, often by 1-6 percentage points, with particularly large gains on reduced and medical datasets. The paper also reports ablations on pre-trained versus fine-tuned generation and on classifier training strategies (combined, random selection with probability, and two-phase training).

Significance. If the central mechanism were verified, the paper would make a useful contribution: it addresses a known weakness of diffusion-based augmentation, namely domain shift between generated and real images, and it does so with a simple, cheap, and modular technique (mixing CLIP caption embeddings) rather than requiring additional training of text encoders or heavy per-dataset optimization. The experimental pipeline is externally validated on held-out test sets, the arithmetic in the tables is internally consistent, three-run averages are reported for the main comparisons, and the code is publicly released. The main weakness is that the experiments do not actually isolate the MVC mixing step from the fine-tuning and image-conditioning machinery, so the paper's central attribution of gains to Mixing Visual Concepts is not yet supported. Missing statistical significance reporting, missing diffusion-based augmentation baselines, and absent quantitative domain-shift/diversity metrics further limit the strength of the claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Table 4] The central claim, that MVC-generated text embeddings are what keep generated images in-domain and diverse, is not tested. Table 4 contrasts a pre-trained SD model with a fine-tuned SD model, but the fine-tuned model also uses image conditioning eI and the two-phase classifier training schedule, so the observed gains could be due to fine-tuning and image conditioning alone, with no contribution from mixing text embeddings. An ablation is needed that holds fine-tuning, synthetic-data volume, and the classifier training schedule fixed and varies only the text-conditioning source: MVC mixed embeddings versus original caption embeddings versus constant/random text. Without this, the accuracy gains cannot be attributed to Mixing Visual Concepts.
  2. [Tables 1-3] The paper reports 'averaged over 3 independent runs' but provides no standard deviations or significance tests. Several improvements are small, e.g., CIFAR-10 Wide-ResNet-28-10 Ours(AA+Syn) 97.6 vs AA 97.4 (+0.2) and Caltech101 RestNet50 Ours(AA+Syn) 97.2 vs AA 96.1 (+1.1); without variance or significance testing these differences may be within run-to-run noise. Report means with standard deviations and the number of runs per cell, and state whether any pairwise comparison is statistically significant.
  3. [Related Work and Table 1] The paper cites and discusses diffusion-based augmentation methods in Section 2, including references [1], [43], and [44], but none of these methods appear as baselines in Tables 1-3. Since the paper's headline is 'outperforms state-of-the-art augmentation techniques,' omitting the most directly relevant diffusion-based competitors makes the comparison incomplete. Add these methods as baselines, or explicitly justify their exclusion on the grounds of experimental scope.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Figure 6] The claim that MVC generates images that are 'diverse and yet similar to the real data' is supported only by qualitative visual inspection. There is no quantitative measurement of domain shift or diversity, such as FID, Inception Score, classifier-confidence histograms, or nearest-neighbor distance statistics. Adding such metrics would directly test the load-bearing assertion of in-domain generation and would strengthen Figure 1 and Figure 6, which currently rely on subjective appearance.
  5. [Section 3.2, Algorithm 1, and Section 4.2.2] Several free parameters that materially affect the method are not reported: the number of coarse mixing operations P, the number of fine mixing operations Q, the guidance scale w (stated only as the SD default 7.5), the RSP probability value (stated as 'e.g., 80%' but not as the actually used value), the synthetic-to-real dataset ratio, and the two-phase training schedule. Without these values the experiments cannot be reproduced from the text alone. Please report the exact hyperparameters and, where feasible, show sensitivity to P and Q.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1] Line 1 of Algorithm 1 reads 'for i=k' but should be 'for k = 1 to Ky'; the subscript notation is also inconsistent (E := {ek}Ky i=k).
  2. [Tables 2 and 3] Table 2 and Table 3 contain typos: 'RestNet50' should be 'ResNet50' and 'Wide-RestNet-50-2' should be 'Wide-ResNet-50-2'; in Table 3, the EfficientNet-B0 row has a misplaced space in '95.2 (+1.9)'.
  3. [Section 4.2.2] The text says 'Random Selection with Probaliity' and 'Comparisons across... Random Selection with Probaliity'; the spelling should be corrected.
  4. [Tables 1-5] The tables refer to green color for improvements, but the manuscript as provided is monochrome; the reader cannot visually distinguish the green entries. Please also report the numerical deltas as done, but avoid color-only encoding.
  5. [Section 3.1, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) defines classifier-free guidance with ϵθ(zt,t,∅), but the text does not clarify whether the null condition applies to both text and image conditioning or only to text; please specify the exact dropout/unconditional setup used during fine-tuning and generation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method is validated on held-out benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a first-principles derivation. It proposes an empirical augmentation pipeline: BLIP-2 captions are embedded with CLIP, Algorithm 1 mixes rows and columns of those embeddings, and a Stable Diffusion U-Net is fine-tuned with image conditioning (eI) and mixed text conditioning (eT). The central claim, improved classifier accuracy, is tested on external held-out test sets (CIFAR-10/100, Tiny ImageNet, Caltech101, Brain Tumor MRI) against AutoAugment, RandAugment, and Fast AutoAugment. None of the reported accuracy numbers is obtained by definition from the MVC construction; the success of the method is an empirical outcome. There are no self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only attribution weakness is that the ablation in Table 4 compares pre-trained versus fine-tuned SD and Table 5 compares training schedules, but no experiment isolates MVC from fine-tuning; however, an untested mechanism is a correctness or attribution concern, not circularity. Per the hard rules, speculation about hyperparameter selection on test data is not evidence of circularity. Hence the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about CLIP embedding mixing and image-conditioned fine-tuning. The free parameters P, Q, guidance scale, RSP probability, and synthetic-to-real ratio are not derived and lack sensitivity analysis. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • P (number of coarse mixing operations) = not reported
    Controls how many rows of the CLIP embedding are replaced; no sensitivity study or chosen value is reported.
  • Q (number of fine mixing operations) = not reported
    Controls element-level mixing; no sensitivity study or chosen value is reported.
  • Guidance scale w = 7.5
    Taken as the default Stable Diffusion value; not tuned for this method.
  • Random Selection with Probability p = 80%
    Hand-chosen probability for mixing synthetic samples into real training batches in the RSP strategy.
  • Synthetic-to-real dataset ratio = 3x to 4x
    Used in two-phase training; selected without a reported ablation across ratios.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Row and column mixing of CLIP caption embeddings produces semantically meaningful new text embeddings that condition the diffusion model to generate in-domain images.
    Central premise of MVC; no experiment isolates whether gains come from mixing versus fine-tuning alone, and no direct domain-shift measurement is provided.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning the SD U-Net on pairs of a noisy image, a random same-class conditional image, and a mixed text embedding teaches the model to generate new images from the same domain.
    Training uses random same-class image pairs rather than paired edit instructions as in InstructPix2Pix; this transitivity is assumed.
  • domain assumption BLIP-2 generated captions, prefixed with the class name, are adequate proxies for the visual content of each image.
    Caption quality is not evaluated; failures in the captions would propagate into the mixed embeddings and the generated images.
  • standard math The standard DDPM and latent diffusion denoising objectives remain valid when an image embedding eI is concatenated to the noisy latent zt.
    Background from Ho et al. and Rombach et al.; however, Eq. 6 as written drops eI in the unconditional term, so the modified guidance is not fully justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dataset Augmentation by Mixing Visual Concepts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YD6LYNMH

@misc{pith2026241215358,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dataset Augmentation by Mixing Visual Concepts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YD6LYNMH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15358}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes a dataset augmentation method by fine-tuning pre-trained diffusion models. Generating images using a pre-trained diffusion model with textual conditioning often results in domain discrepancy between real data and generated images. We propose a fine-tuning approach where we adapt the diffusion model by conditioning it with real images and novel text embeddings. We introduce a unique procedure called Mixing Visual Concepts (MVC) where we create novel text embeddings from image captions. The MVC enables us to generate multiple images which are diverse and yet similar to the real data enabling us to perform effective dataset augmentation. We perform comprehensive qualitative and quantitative evaluations with the proposed dataset augmentation approach showcasing both coarse-grained and finegrained changes in generated images. Our approach outperforms state-of-the-art augmentation techniques on benchmark classification tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15358 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Na¨ıvely deploying a pre-trained generative model to generate new images for dataset augmentation can lead to domain discrepancy. Columns 1, 2 are MRI scans from the Brain Tumor Dataset [5], Columns 3, 4 are images generated using a pre-trained Stable Diffusion (SD) model, Columns 5, 6 are images generated using the proposed MVC method. avoiding overfitting. While these methods effectively in￾crease dataset size, th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The results of coarse and fine mixing. (a) real image, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. An overview of image generation: We begin with a com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Column 1 depicts real images from CIFAR-100. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The impact of concept mixing on augmented images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Synthetic data from diffusion models improves imagenet classification

    Shekoofeh Azizi, Simon Kornblith, Chitwan Saharia, Mo- hammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Synthetic data from diffusion models improves imagenet classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08466, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  2. [43]

    Boosting zero-shot classifica- tion with synthetic data diversity via stable diffusion

    Jordan Shipard, Arnold Wiliem, Kien Nguyen Thanh, Wei Xiang, and Clinton Fookes. Boosting zero-shot classifica- tion with synthetic data diversity via stable diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03298, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  3. [44]

    Effective data augmentation with diffusion models

    Brandon Trabucco, Kyle Doherty, Max Gurinas, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Effective data augmentation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07944, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  4. [2]

    This dataset does not exist: training models from generated images

    Victor Besnier, Himalaya Jain, Andrei Bursuc, Matthieu Cord, and Patrick P´erez. This dataset does not exist: training models from generated images. In ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    Deep generative modelling: A comparative re- view of vaes, gans, normalizing flows, energy-based and au- toregressive models

    Sam Bond-Taylor, Adam Leach, Yang Long, and Chris G Willcocks. Deep generative modelling: A comparative re- view of vaes, gans, normalizing flows, energy-based and au- toregressive models. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 2, 3, 6, 7

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Brain tumor mri dataset, 2023

    Jyotismita Chaki and Marcin Wozniak. Brain tumor mri dataset, 2023. 1, 6, 7

    work page 2023

  8. [6]

    A review of medical image data augmentation techniques for deep learning appli- cations

    Phillip Chlap, Hang Min, Nym Vandenberg, Jason Dowling, Lois Holloway, and Annette Haworth. A review of medical image data augmentation techniques for deep learning appli- cations. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncol- ogy, 65(5):545–563, 2021. 1

    work page 2021

Show all 48 references
  1. [7]

    Diffusion models in vision: A survey

    Florinel-Alin Croitoru, Vlad Hondru, Radu Tudor Ionescu, and Mubarak Shah. Diffusion models in vision: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, 2023. 1

    2023

  2. [8]

    Autoaugment: Learning augmentation policies from data

    Ekin D Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Dandelion Mane, Vijay Vasude- van, and Quoc V Le. Autoaugment: Learning augmentation policies from data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09501, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Autoaugment: Learning augmentation strategies from data

    Ekin D Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Dandelion Mane, Vijay Vasude- van, and Quoc V Le. Autoaugment: Learning augmentation strategies from data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 113–123, 2019. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8

    2019

  4. [10]

    Randaugment: Practical automated data augmen- tation with a reduced search space

    Ekin D Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V Le. Randaugment: Practical automated data augmen- tation with a reduced search space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, pages 702–703, 2020. 1, 2, 6, 7

    2020

  5. [11]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009. 5

    2009

  6. [12]

    Dataset augmen- tation in feature space

    Terrance DeVries and Graham W Taylor. Dataset augmen- tation in feature space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05538 ,

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    Jukebox: A gen- erative model for music

    Prafulla Dhariwal, Heewoo Jun, Christine Payne, Jong Wook Kim, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. Jukebox: A gen- erative model for music. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00341,

    2005 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Flownet: Learning optical flow with convolutional networks

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Philipp Fischer, Eddy Ilg, Philip Hausser, Caner Hazirbas, Vladimir Golkov, Patrick Van Der Smagt, Daniel Cremers, and Thomas Brox. Flownet: Learning optical flow with convolutional networks. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer...

    2015

  9. [15]

    One-shot learning of object categories

    Li Fei-Fei, Robert Fergus, and Pietro Perona. One-shot learning of object categories. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 28(4):594–611, 2006. 6

    2006

  10. [16]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 1

    2014

  11. [17]

    A review on generative adversarial networks: Algorithms, theory, and applications

    Jie Gui, Zhenan Sun, Yonggang Wen, Dacheng Tao, and Jieping Ye. A review on generative adversarial networks: Algorithms, theory, and applications. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 35(4):3313–3332, 2021. 2

    2021

  12. [18]

    Is synthetic data from generative models ready for image recognition? arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07574, 2022

    Ruifei He, Shuyang Sun, Xin Yu, Chuhui Xue, Wenqing Zhang, Philip Torr, Song Bai, and Xiaojuan Qi. Is synthetic data from generative models ready for image recognition? arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07574, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  13. [19]

    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, 3

    2020

  14. [20]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Generative models as a data source for multiview represen- tation learning

    Ali Jahanian, Xavier Puig, Yonglong Tian, and Phillip Isola. Generative models as a data source for multiview represen- tation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05258, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Distilling model failures as directions in latent space

    Saachi Jain, Hannah Lawrence, Ankur Moitra, and Alek- sander Madry. Distilling model failures as directions in latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14754, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  17. [23]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 4401–4410, 2019. 2

    2019

  18. [24]

    Deep directed genera- tive models with energy-based probability estimation

    Taesup Kim and Yoshua Bengio. Deep directed genera- tive models with energy-based probability estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03439, 2016. 2

    2016 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Auto-encoding varia- tional bayes

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding varia- tional bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. 1

    2013 arXiv

  20. [26]

    An introduction to variational autoencoders

    Diederik P Kingma, Max Welling, et al. An introduction to variational autoencoders. Foundations and Trends® in Ma- chine Learning, 12(4):307–392, 2019. 2

    2019

  21. [27]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. 2009. 5

    2009

  22. [28]

    Tiny imagenet visual recognition challenge

    Ya Le and Xuan Yang. Tiny imagenet visual recognition challenge. CS 231N, 7(7):3, 2015. 6

    2015

  23. [29]

    Smart augmentation learning an optimal data augmentation strategy

    Joseph Lemley, Shabab Bazrafkan, and Peter Corcoran. Smart augmentation learning an optimal data augmentation strategy. Ieee Access, 5:5858–5869, 2017. 2

    2017

  24. [30]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In In- ternational conference on machine learning , pages 19730– 19742. PMLR, 2023. 2, 4 9

    2023

  25. [31]

    Fast autoaugment

    Sungbin Lim, Ildoo Kim, Taesup Kim, Chiheon Kim, and Sungwoong Kim. Fast autoaugment. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019. 6

    2019

  26. [32]

    Learning deep energy models

    Jiquan Ngiam, Zhenghao Chen, Pang W Koh, and Andrew Y Ng. Learning deep energy models. In ICML, pages 1105– 1112, 2011. 2

    2011

  27. [33]

    Visda: The visual domain adaptation challenge

    Xingchao Peng, Ben Usman, Neela Kaushik, Judy Hoffman, Dequan Wang, and Kate Saenko. Visda: The visual domain adaptation challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.06924 ,

    arXiv

  28. [34]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  29. [35]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image gen- eration with clip latents

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

    2022 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Variational inference with normalizing flows

    Danilo Rezende and Shakir Mohamed. Variational inference with normalizing flows. In International conference on ma- chine learning, pages 1530–1538. PMLR, 2015. 1, 2

    2015

  31. [37]

    Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models

    Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mohamed, and Daan Wier- stra. Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models. In ICML, pages 1278–1286. PMLR, 2014. 2

    2014

  32. [38]

    Playing for data: Ground truth from computer games

    Stephan R Richter, Vibhav Vineet, Stefan Roth, and Vladlen Koltun. Playing for data: Ground truth from computer games. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 14 , pages 102–118. Springer,

    2016

  33. [39]

    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. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7

    2022

  34. [40]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Pa...

    2015

  35. [41]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, San- jeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International journal of computer vision, 115:211–252, 2015. 2

    2015

  36. [42]

    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

  37. [45]

    A bayesian data augmentation approach for learn- ing deep models

    Toan Tran, Trung Pham, Gustavo Carneiro, Lyle Palmer, and Ian Reid. A bayesian data augmentation approach for learn- ing deep models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 2

    2017

  38. [46]

    Conditional image genera- tion with pixelcnn decoders

    Aaron Van den Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, Lasse Espeholt, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, et al. Conditional image genera- tion with pixelcnn decoders. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016. 1

    2016

  39. [47]

    Wide residual net- works

    Sergey Zagoruyko and Nikos Komodakis. Wide residual net- works. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Confer- ence 2016, BMVC. BMV A Press, 2016. 6

    2016

  40. [48]

    Datasetgan: Efficient labeled data factory with minimal human effort

    Yuxuan Zhang, Huan Ling, Jun Gao, Kangxue Yin, Jean- Francois Lafleche, Adela Barriuso, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. Datasetgan: Efficient labeled data factory with minimal human effort. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.