Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

ESDiff: Encoding Strategy-inspired Diffusion Model with Few-shot Learning for Color Image Inpainting

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ESDiff claims that re-encoding RGB channels through a random virtual mask lets a score-based diffusion model inpaint color images after training on just 10 images.

desk verdict Few-shot diffusion inpainting with a new channel-perturbation trick, but the paper's own ablation shows the low-rank module, not the virtual mask, drives the gains; worth revision, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17524 v1 pith:OHGHN6A7 submitted 2025-04-24 cs.CV

Junyan Zhang , Yan Li , Mengxiao Geng , Liu Shi , Qiegen Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV MSC 68T0768U1094A08
keywords colorimageinpaintingfew-shotlearningdiffusionmodelscore-basedgenerativevirtualmaskchannelperturbationlow-rankHankelmatrixADMM
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 tries to establish that color image inpainting can be done with very little training data if the input is first re-encoded. Its encoding strategy uses a random Gaussian virtual mask to perturb pairs of RGB channels, producing a higher-dimensional object that exposes redundancy between channels; a score-based diffusion model is then trained on these perturbed patches using only 10 images. At reconstruction time, the method alternates a predictor-corrector diffusion sampler with an inverse perturbation, a low-rank Hankel/ADMM step, and a data-consistency step. The reported result is that this few-shot pipeline improves PSNR and SSIM over kernel regression, K-SVD, ALOHA, DIP, and NCSN++ on block, text, and random masks, and transfers to six standard natural images despite being trained on bedroom scenes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the virtual mask, a matrix $M_{ij}$ drawn from a normal distribution, used to mutate channel pairs before training and again inside the inpainting loop. In the mutual perturbation transformation, each channel is replaced by a mask-weighted mixture of itself and another channel (for example, $\tilde{C}_R = C_R M_{ij} + C_G (1-M_{ij})$, with cyclic analogues for G and B), and the original plus the three perturbed versions are stacked into a high-dimensional tensor. The inverse transformation uses the saved mask to undo this mixing. The second mechanism is the low-rank step: perturbed patches are lifted into Hankel matrices, solved with ADMM using LMaFit initialization, and mapped back to image patches; the paper identifies this step with the measurement term in the conditional score decomposition.

What would settle it

Run ESDiff on 80% block masks with the low-rank ADMM step removed but the virtual mask, diffusion sampler, and data-consistency step intact; if PSNR stays near the reported 29.08 dB, the low-rank step is not load-bearing, whereas if it falls toward the 24.71 dB of the no-low-rank ablation, the few-shot gain is coming from the low-rank structure, not from the virtual-mask encoding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, ESDiff's central discovery is that a score-based generative model can learn a usable inpainting prior from ten images, provided each image is converted into a high-dimensional representation before training. The conversion mutates the red, green, and blue channels with a shared random mask, so every pixel's value in each channel is re-expressed through another channel; stacking the original and three perturbed versions gives the network a richer training signal. During iterative inpainting, the same perturbation is applied, the score network predicts a denoised version, an inverse transform and a low-rank Hankel-matrix ADMM update enforce structure, and a data-consistency step forces agreement with observed pixels. The paper reports quantitative gains on LSUN-bedroom (for example, 1.64 dB over the next best method on block masks, and 2.03-2.81 dB on random masks) and shows that on six standard test images the method is generally competitive or superior, with its largest margin on Baboon at 50% masking.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that alternating the learned diffusion score with a low-rank repair step and a known-pixel copy produces the same result as correctly sampling the missing pixels given the known ones—an equivalence the paper asserts rather than proves, and one its own ablation shows is dominated by the low-rank component.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Few-shot diffusion inpainting becomes practical: a domain can be handled with a handful of training images rather than thousands, as long as the data has exploitable inter-channel structure.
  • The same virtual-mask encoding could be applied to other multi-channel inverse problems, such as demosaicking or multispectral reconstruction, since the only requirement is correlated channels.
  • Adding an explicit low-rank/ADMM step inside a diffusion sampling loop gives a way to inject non-learned structural priors into score-based restoration, extending beyond inpainting to compressive sensing.
  • Because the method requires paired correlated channels, it does not directly transfer to grayscale or single-channel input without modification, a limitation the paper acknowledges.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the virtual mask works mainly by increasing effective training-sample diversity, then the same principle could be applied to any small dataset by perturbing along other correlated axes, such as adjacent pixels, scales, or views, not just color channels.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported ablation suggests that the low-rank Hankel/ADMM step, and not the virtual-mask encoding, is the main driver of the numerical gain; a natural reading is that the method would also work, perhaps almost as well, with a different learned denoiser in place of the diffusion score.
  • Beyond the paper: because the inverse transformation is deterministic and the mask is saved, one could test the sensitivity of the result to mask realization; if different masks give very different inpaintings, the method's stability becomes a testable question the paper does not address.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes ESDiff, a score-based diffusion model for color image inpainting under a few-shot training regime. It constructs high-dimensional training objects by applying a random 'virtual mask' to mix RGB channels (mutual perturbation transformation, MPT), trains an NCSN++-style score network on 64x64 patches drawn from only 10 LSUN-bedroom images, and performs iterative inpainting by alternating a predictor-corrector sampler with inverse MPT, a low-rank Hankel/ADMM step, and a data-consistency step. Experiments on LSUN-bedroom and six standard natural images report PSNR/SSIM comparisons against kernel regression, K-SVD, ALOHA, DIP, and NCSN++ under block, text, and random masks, plus ablations of the MPT and low-rank modules.

Significance. If the contributions were fully supported, the paper would be of interest to the inpainting community: the few-shot regime (10 training images) is practically attractive, the cross-channel perturbation idea is simple and original, and the code is made publicly available. The experimental section covers several mask types and includes an ablation, which is a strength. However, the significance is currently lower than claimed: the baselines are dated, the proposed encoding module is not isolated from the low-rank regularizer in the headline tables, and the theoretical framing around a score-estimation bound is not used correctly. The central attribution of the performance gain to the virtual-mask encoding therefore remains unestablished.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.C (Eqs. 12-22)] The core posterior-sampling step is asserted rather than derived. Bayes' rule in Eq. (12) only decomposes the conditional score into a prior term and a likelihood term, but the subsequent algorithm replaces the likelihood term with the deterministic low-rank Hankel/ADMM update (Eqs. 16-20) and a least-squares DC projector (Eqs. 21-22). No argument or theorem shows that alternating Eqs. (14)-(15) with these projections produces samples from p(MP|Y); in fact, the low-rank Hankel constraint is a prior over image structure, not an expression of the measurement likelihood. Because this substitution is the mechanism by which the diffusion prior is conditioned on the observation, the correctness of the method as a conditional sampler is not established.
  2. [IV.C (Table IV)] Table IV undercuts the paper's central attribution. On 80% block masks, NCSN++ alone is 20.13 dB / 0.8652, NCSN++ with LR is 28.42 dB / 0.8702, NCSN++ with MPT is 24.71 dB / 0.7057, and ESDiff is 29.08 dB / 0.8777. The low-rank module thus supplies roughly 8.3 dB of the 8.95 dB total PSNR improvement over NCSN++, while adding MPT alone lowers SSIM below the NCSN++ baseline. Because Tables I and II compare ESDiff only against systems without the LR step, the reported margins cannot be attributed to the virtual-mask encoding; including NCSN++ with LR (and ideally LR-only) in the headline comparisons is necessary to support the abstract's claim.
  3. [III.A (Eqs. 5-6)] The theoretical motivation misstates the cited Block et al. bound. In that bound, the score-estimation error scales with the data dimension d, so constructing higher-dimensional encoded objects cannot be invoked as a reason that fewer training samples suffice. Moreover, Eqs. (5)-(6) are not rendered as complete, interpretable statements, and the sentence 'From the formulation, as n increases...' does not establish the paper's claim about limited samples. This section should either state the bound precisely with its dimension dependence qualified, or be removed as unnecessary for the empirical contribution.
  4. [IV.B (Tables I-II)] The reported margins do not match the tables. For the block mask, the text says ESDiff is 1.64 dB better than the second-best method, but Table I shows 28.97 versus 27.90 dB, a 1.07 dB margin. For random masks, the stated 2.03/2.81/2.75 dB margins are not those in Table I; for example, the 80% random case gives 29.08 versus 27.75 dB, a 1.33 dB margin. In addition, no error bars or repeated mask realizations are reported, so single-image PSNR/SSIM differences of 0.01-0.1 dB or SSIM units are not shown to be statistically meaningful. The overclaim that ESDiff 'exceeds current techniques' is not supportable from these numbers alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV.B.2] The text refers to 'seven standard natural images' and later to '7 standard test images', but only six images are listed and evaluated in Table II; this should be corrected to six.
  2. [IV.C (Table III)] The caption of Table III promises PSNR, SSIM, and time values for different numbers of raw training data, but the rows are perturbation ratios (0, 2, 2.81, 3) and no time column is present; the caption and table content should be aligned.
  3. [IV.B.3 (Table V)] The text states that the model learned from ImageNet is slightly better than the model learned from BSD, but Table V shows BSD with higher PSNR (28.71 versus 28.66) and higher SSIM (0.8735 versus 0.8696); the text contradicts its own table.
  4. [II and III] Several equations are garbled in the typeset text, including Eqs. (5)-(6), (12)-(13), and (24), with missing symbols and unclear subscripts; a careful proofread is needed before publication.
  5. [IV.A.2] The hyperparameters lambda = 1 and SNR = 0.075 are justified only by 'experimental experience', and no sensitivity analysis is provided for them; a small grid over these values would strengthen the claim that performance is not tuned to the test set.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method is an empirical pipeline whose components are explicit and externally benchmarked; tuned hyperparameters and an asserted score decomposition are not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a parameter-free derivation of its target result from its own definitions. The iterative inpainting procedure is explicitly algorithmic: the forward mutual perturbation transformation (Eq. 7) and its inverse (Eq. 8) are exact inverses by construction, and the low-rank ADMM step (Eqs. 16-20) plus data-consistency step (Eqs. 21-22) are presented as optimization modules rather than as predicted consequences. The conditional score decomposition in Eq. 12 is asserted as an interpretation of the observation model within a low-rank framework, but it is not derived from Eq. 11 in the sense of being logically forced; it is an approximation choice, which is a correctness or justification concern rather than a circular one. The only fitted quantities, such as the perturbation ratio 2.81 and the data-consistency weight lambda, are tuned on the task and reported in ablation tables (Tables III and IV); tuning a hyperparameter is not a renamed prediction. The comparisons in Tables I and II are against external methods (kernel regression, K-SVD, ALOHA, DIP, NCSN++), and the paper contains no load-bearing self-citation chain and no imported uniqueness theorem. The ablation Table IV does show that the low-rank module contributes most of the improvement over plain NCSN++ (28.42 dB vs. 20.13 dB, with MPT alone at 24.71 dB), which weakens the attribution of the gain to the virtual-mask encoding, but this is an experimental-confound/evidence issue, not circularity: the reported ESDiff outputs are not constructed to equal any fitted input. The paper also states its own limitation that prior learning requires paired, mutually correlated original images, making grayscale transfer challenging. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction or by self-citation, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method rests on standard score-based diffusion assumptions, an invertible channel-mixing transform, and an ad hoc low-rank substitution for the measurement likelihood. The main fitted hyperparameters are the perturbation ratio, DC weight, and SNR.

free parameters (4)
  • Perturbation ratio xi = 2.81
    Chosen as the best value in Table III based on PSNR on LSUN 80% masking; it controls the threshold for mutual perturbation, and the paper states 'we used a perturbation ratio of 2.81, which was the best effect'.
  • DC step weight lambda = 1
    Set to 1 'based on our experimental experience' (Section IV.A.2); balances data consistency vs prior in Eq. (22).
  • Signal-to-noise ratio SNR = 0.075
    Set for the observation noise model; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Noise schedule sigma_min, sigma_max = 0.01, 378
    Chosen based on experience, following reference [28]; these are hyperparameters of the VE-SDE.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Score-based SDE framework (VE-SDE) with NCSN++ architecture can learn the score of the perturbed patch distribution from 10 images.
    The method relies on the standard score-based diffusion model setup (Eqs. 3, 4, 9-11) and assumes that the high-dimensional MPT-transformed patches are learnable by NCSN++ with 10 training images.
  • domain assumption The mutual perturbation transformation MPT is invertible given the virtual mask.
    Eqs. (7)-(8) define MPT and i-MPT; the inverse is assumed to exactly recover the original channels, but the formulas are garbled and the mask-sharing between training and test is not fully specified.
  • domain assumption Low-rank Hankel structure is a valid regularizer for natural image patches in the perturbed domain.
    The ADMM low-rank step (Eqs. 16-20) assumes that the Hankel matrix of each MPT-transformed patch is low-rank, a property borrowed from ALOHA [17] without adaptation to the perturbed domain.
  • ad hoc to paper The conditional score decomposition in Eq. (12) permits the LR step to stand in for the measurement likelihood.
    The paper substitutes the low-rank constraint for log p(Y|MP) without derivation; this is an ad hoc modeling choice specific to ESDiff.
  • domain assumption The test-time virtual mask is drawn from the same distribution as training, and the score model marginalizes over masks appropriately.
    The paper does not condition the score model on the mask and does not specify how masks are generated at test time; if the mask distribution differs, the prior is mismatched.
invented entities (1)
  • Virtual mask
    purpose: A Gaussian random matrix used to mix RGB channel values, creating higher-dimensional perturbed tensors for few-shot learning.
    The virtual mask is a component of the method, not an independent entity; it does not make falsifiable predictions outside the method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ESDiff: Encoding Strategy-inspired Diffusion Model with Few-shot Learning for Color Image Inpainting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHGHN6A7

@misc{pith2026250417524,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ESDiff: Encoding Strategy-inspired Diffusion Model with Few-shot Learning for Color Image Inpainting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHGHN6A7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17524}
}
read the original abstract

Image inpainting is a technique used to restore missing or damaged regions of an image. Traditional methods primarily utilize information from adjacent pixels for reconstructing missing areas, while they struggle to preserve complex details and structures. Simultaneously, models based on deep learning necessitate substantial amounts of training data. To address this challenge, an encoding strategy-inspired diffusion model with few-shot learning for color image inpainting is proposed in this paper. The main idea of this novel encoding strategy is the deployment of a "virtual mask" to construct high-dimensional objects through mutual perturbations between channels. This approach enables the diffusion model to capture diverse image representations and detailed features from limited training samples. Moreover, the encoding strategy leverages redundancy between channels, integrates with low-rank methods during iterative inpainting, and incorporates the diffusion model to achieve accurate information output. Experimental results indicate that our method exceeds current techniques in quantitative metrics, and the reconstructed images quality has been improved in aspects of texture and structural integrity, leading to more precise and coherent results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17524 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pipeline of coded mask imaging in (a) and our encoding strate￾gy introduced by a “virtual mask” in (b). Coded mask imaging involves incorporating a special de￾signed mask within an imaging system, where incident light passes through aperture array of the mask. Multiple shifted and transformed encoded data are received by the sensor, which are reconstructed into the digital image using compu￾tational algorithms. … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bringing old photos back to life,

    Z. Wan et al., "Bringing old photos back to life," in proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 2747-2757

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Contextual residual aggregation for ultra high -resolution image inpainting,

    Z. Yi, Q. Tang, S. Azizi, D. Jang, and Z. Xu, "Contextual residual aggregation for ultra high -resolution image inpainting," in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 7508-7517

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Learning invariant representation for unsupervised image restoration,

    W. Du, H. Chen, and H. Yang, "Learning invariant representation for unsupervised image restoration," in Proceedings of the ieee/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 14483-14492

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Mask optimization for image inpainting,

    M. Isogawa, D. Mikami, D. Iwai, H. Kimata, and K. Sato, "Mask optimization for image inpainting," IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 69728-69741, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Spatio -temporal consistent depth-image-based rendering using layered depth image and inpainting,

    S. M. Muddala, R. Olsson, and M. Sjö strö m, "Spatio -temporal consistent depth-image-based rendering using layered depth image and inpainting," EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing, vol. 2016, pp. 1-19, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    A fast single image haze removal method based on human retina property,

    X. Ning, W. Li, and W. Liu, "A fast single image haze removal method based on human retina property," IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 211-214, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Learning how to inpaint from global image statistics,

    Zomet, "Learning how to inpaint from global image statistics," in Proceedings Ninth IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2003, pp. 305-312 vol. 1: IEEE

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Level lines based disocclusion,

    S. Masnou and J. -M. Morel, "Level lines based disocclusion," in Proceedings 1998 International Conference on Image Processing. ICIP98 (Cat. No. 98CB36269), 1998, pp. 259-263: IEEE

    work page 1998

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Image -to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,

    P. Isola, J. -Y . Zhu, T. Zhou, and A. A. Efros, "Image -to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks," in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 1125-1134

    2017

  2. [10]

    Image inpainting with local and global refinement,

    W. Quan, R. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Z. Li, J. Wang, and D. -M. Yan, "Image inpainting with local and global refinement," IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 31, pp. 2405-2420, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    A robust forgery detection algorithm for object removal by exemplar -based image inpainting,

    D. Zhang, Z. Liang, G. Yang, Q. Li, L. Li, and X. Sun, "A robust forgery detection algorithm for object removal by exemplar -based image inpainting," Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 77, pp. 11823-11842, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Image inpainting,

    M. Bertalmio, G. Sapiro, V . Caselles, and C. Ballester, "Image inpainting," in Proceedings of the 27th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 2000, pp. 417-424

    2000

  5. [13]

    Domain -based structure -aware image inpainting,

    Y . Wei and S. Liu, "Domain -based structure -aware image inpainting," Signal, Image and Video Processing, vol. 10, pp. 911- 919, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Context -aware patch -based image inpainting using Markov random field modeling,

    T. Ružić and A. Pižurica, "Context -aware patch -based image inpainting using Markov random field modeling," IEEE transactions on image processing, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 444 -456, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Kernel regression for image processing and reconstruction,

    H. Takeda, S. Farsiu, and P . Milanfar, "Kernel regression for image processing and reconstruction," IEEE Transactions on image processing, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 349-366, 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    K -SVD: An algorithm for designing overcomplete dictionaries for sparse representation,

    M. Aharon, M. Elad, and A. Bruckstein, "K -SVD: An algorithm for designing overcomplete dictionaries for sparse representation," IEEE Transactions on signal processing, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 4311- 4322, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Annihilating filter -based low-rank Hankel matrix approach for image inpainting,

    K. H. Jin and J. C. Ye, "Annihilating filter -based low-rank Hankel matrix approach for image inpainting," IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 3498-3511, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Damaged region filling by improved criminisi image inpainting algorithm for thangka,

    F. Yao, "Damaged region filling by improved criminisi image inpainting algorithm for thangka," Cluster Computing, vol. 22, pp. 13683-13691, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    End -to-end trained CNN encoder - decoder networks for image steganography,

    R. Rahim and S. Nadeem, "End -to-end trained CNN encoder - decoder networks for image steganography," in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) workshops , 2018, pp. 1-6

    2018

  12. [20]

    Deep image prior,

    D. Ulyanov, A. V edaldi, and V . Lempitsky, "Deep image prior," in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 9446-9454

    2018

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, "Denoising diffusion implicit models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, "High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models," in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 10684-10695

    2022

  16. [24]

    Context Encoders: Feature Learning by Inpainting,

    D. Pathak, P. Krahenbuhl, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and A. A. Efros, "Context Encoders: Feature Learning by Inpainting," in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis,

    P. Dhariwal and A. Nichol, "Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis," Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 8780-8794, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,

    Y . Song and S. Ermon, "Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution," Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Improved techniques for training score - based generative models,

    Y . Song and S. Ermon, "Improved techniques for training score - based generative models," Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 12438-12448, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Score -based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations,

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole, "Score -based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations," arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    A. Lugmayr, M. Danelljan, A. Romero, F. Yu, R. Timofte, and L. Van Gool, "Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models," in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 11461 - 11471

    2022

  22. [30]

    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 information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 26565-26577, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Compressed sensing,

    D. L. Donoho, "Compressed sensing," IEEE Transa ctions on information theory, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1289-1306, 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    L0 -norm-based sparse representation through alternate projections,

    L. Mancera and J. Portilla, "L0 -norm-based sparse representation through alternate projections," in 2006 International Conference on Image Processing, 2006, pp. 2089-2092: IEEE

    2006

  25. [33]

    Enhancing sparsity by reweighted ℓ 1 minimization,

    E. J. Candes, M. B. Wakin, and S. P. Boyd, "Enhancing sparsity by reweighted ℓ 1 minimization," Journal of Fourier analysis and applications, vol. 14, pp. 877-905, 2008

    2008

  26. [34]

    Fractional -order iterative regularization method f or total variation based image denoising,

    J. Zhang, Z. Wei, and L. Xiao, "Fractional -order iterative regularization method f or total variation based image denoising," Journal of Electronic Imaging, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 043005 -043005, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    P. E. Kloeden, E. Platen, P . E. Kloeden, and E. Platen, Stochastic differential equations. Springer, 1992

    1992

  28. [36]

    Deep generative model for image inpainting with local binary pattern learning and spatial attention,

    H. Wu, J. Zhou, and Y . Li, "Deep generative model for image inpainting with local binary pattern learning and spatial attention," IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 24, pp. 4016-4027, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    E2I: Generative inpainting from edge to image,

    S. Xu, D. Liu, and Z. Xiong, "E2I: Generative inpainting from edge to image," IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1308-1322, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Inter -Channel Correlation Modeling and Improved Skewed Histogram Shifting for Reversible Data Hiding in Color Images,

    D. He, Z. Cai, D. Zhou, and Z. Chen, "Inter -Channel Correlation Modeling and Improved Skewed Histogram Shifting for Reversible Data Hiding in Color Images," Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 9, p. 1283, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Generative modeling with denoising auto-encoders and Langevin sampling,

    A. Block, Y . Mroueh, and A. Rakhlin, "Generative modeling with denoising auto-encoders and Langevin sampling," arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.00107, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein, "Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers," Foundations and Trends® in Machine learning, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-122, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    Solving a low -rank factorization model for matrix completion by a nonlinear successive over - relaxation algorithm,

    Z. Wen, W. Yin, and Y . Zhang, "Solving a low -rank factorization model for matrix completion by a nonlinear successive over - relaxation algorithm," Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 333-361, 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    Lsun: Construction of a large -scale image dataset using deep learning with humans in the loop,

    F. Y u, A. Seff, Y . Zhang, S. Song, T. Funkhouser, and J. Xiao, "Lsun: Construction of a large -scale image dataset using deep learning with humans in the loop," arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.03365, 2015

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.