Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

LoRA of Change: Learning to Generate LoRA for the Editing Instruction from A Single Before-After Image Pair

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read From one before-after image pair, the LoRA of Change framework dynamically generates a low-rank edit operator that applies to any query image, trained on paired data alone.

desk verdict New paired-data-only visual-instruction editing method with a plausible but under-validated inverse-LoRA training trick; worth refereeing, not yet convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19156 v3 pith:4KJGVQDG submitted 2024-11-28 cs.CV

Xue Song , Jiequan Cui , Hanwang Zhang , Jiaxin Shi , Jingjing Chen , Chi Zhang , Yu-Gang Jiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords imageeditingvisualinstructionslow-rankadaptationhypernetworkdiffusionmodelspaired-datatrainingappearanceleakageinstructiontransfer
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

Image editing usually relies on language prompts, but a before-after image pair can carry an edit instruction more precisely than words. This paper argues that the 'change' in such a pair can be compressed into a LoRA—a small set of low-rank weights added to a frozen diffusion model—by a hypernetwork that reads the two images and outputs the adapter. The paper's central move is a LoRA Reverse training objective: the same adapter, negated, must turn the edited image back into the original, which stops the model from merely copying the after image's appearance. With that regularizer, the model can be trained on paired data alone instead of scarce quadruples, and at inference the generated adapter edits any query image without fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The central object is the instruction-specific LoRA (low-rank weight adapter) generated by the hypernetwork $H$. $H$ reads the pair $(A,A')$ with a vision-transformer encoder, fuses the features, and uses a transformer decoder with learnable queries plus layer-wise linear projections to emit the two low-rank matrices for each attention layer of the frozen InstructPix2Pix model. The reverse training objective is a second diffusion reconstruction loss evaluated with the negated LoRA, which suppresses appearance leakage, and randomly swapping $A$ and $A'$ encourages $H(A,A') = -H(A',A)$.

What would settle it

Take a trained model and a held-out before-after pair, generate $B' = G(H(A,A'), B)$, then apply the negated adapter to get $G(-H(A,A'), B')$, and measure how close the result is to $B$. If a substantial fraction of pairs fails this round-trip, the central assumption behind the LoRA Reverse objective is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a visual editing instruction can be isolated as a dynamic LoRA: given a before-after pair $(A, A')$, a hypernetwork $H$ outputs adapter weights so that the frozen diffusion model satisfies $B' = G(H(A,A'), B)$ for any query $B$. The LoRA Reverse objective adds the constraint that the negated adapter must invert the edit, so that $G(-H(A,A'), B')$ reconstructs $B$, and random exchange of the pair during training encourages anti-symmetry. The paper argues this disentangles the change from the appearance of the specific images, so the same adapter transfers across query images and training can be done with only paired data, covering a broad spectrum of edit types.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that negating the generated low-rank adapter exactly reverses the edit, so $G(-H(A,A'), B')$ reconstructs $B$; if that is false, the reverse loss can be satisfied without the adapter truly isolating the change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Training can scale to a broad class of real-world visual instructions because each example needs only a before-after pair, not a before-after-query-target quadruple.
  • At inference the model needs no test-time fine-tuning: one forward pass through the hypernetwork produces an adapter that edits an arbitrary query image.
  • The same generated adapter is reusable across different query images, so an edit instruction is captured once and applied many times.
  • The reverse-loss regularizer plus random exchange prevents the edited output from simply copying the after image's appearance, which is what makes paired-data training feasible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because the edit lives in additive LoRA weights, adapters from two different instructions could be added to perform both edits at once; the paper does not test composition.
  • Editorial extension: the reverse objective could be turned into a direct round-trip evaluation on held-out pairs, measuring how close $G(-H(A,A'), G(H(A,A'), B))$ is to $B$; this would stress-test the central assumption.
  • Editorial extension: if the hypernetwork's feature space is shared across instructions, the same architecture may handle edit types beyond the six reported, but that is an empirical question the paper leaves open.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LoRA of Change (LoC), a framework for image editing from visual instructions, where a before-after image pair (A, A') is the instruction. A hypernetwork H encodes the pair into a LoRA that is injected into a frozen InstructPix2Pix model G, which then edits an arbitrary query image B. To avoid the need for quad data (A, A', B, B'), training uses only paired data by setting B and B' to random horizontal flips of A and A'. A 'LoRA Reverse' objective is added: G(-H(A,A'), B') is trained to reconstruct B, under the assumption that negating the generated LoRA inverts the encoded edit. The authors report qualitative results across six edit types and quantitative results (LPIPS, Visual CLIP, FID, inference time) on a 1000-image subset of the InstructPix2Pix dataset, plus a small user study. They claim that the method supports a broad spectrum of real-world visual instructions and enables real-time editing without test-time fine-tuning.

Significance. If the central mechanism holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: a hypernetwork that distills a reusable, interpretable edit operator from a single before-after pair, trained without quad data. This could broaden the applicability of visual-instruction editing and partially address the quad-data scarcity that limits prior inpainting- and ControlNet-based approaches. The framework is clearly described and the qualitative examples for addition, manipulation, removal, style transfer, replacement, and face manipulation are promising. The paper also honestly identifies the appearance-leakage problem and proposes a regularization strategy. However, the validity of the core 'LoRA Reverse' assumption is not established, and the quantitative evidence is thin. The paper does not release code, which limits reproducibility, but that is not itself a reason for rejection. Overall, the idea is interesting and likely within the scope of the journal if the load-bearing assumptions and evaluation gaps are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (7)] The reverse objective assumes that negating the generated LoRA exactly inverts the edit, i.e., G(-H(A,A'), B') reconstructs B. This is not a formal consequence of LoRA (a low-rank additive weight perturbation) or of the DDIM generation process, and no derivation or direct validation is provided. Furthermore, because B and B' are always horizontal flips of A and A' during training, both loss terms are evaluated only on queries that are mirror-symmetric to the instruction pair. A model could satisfy the forward and reverse losses by appearance shortcuts (e.g., copying the mirrored appearance of A' into B' and vice versa) without encoding the semantic change in a way that transfers to arbitrary query images. Please provide concrete evidence that the learned LoRA actually inverts the edit on arbitrary queries, for example by evaluating on true quad data with B not equal to a flip of A, or by probing the effect of the generated LoRA and its negation on held-out queries. Without this, the central claim of generalizable instruction extraction from paired data alone is not established.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 2] The quantitative evaluation is based on a single 1000-image subset with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The claim of 'consistently better LPIPS, Visual CLIP, and FID' is not supported by variance estimates; notably, VISII achieves a higher Visual CLIP score, and the authors' explanation (test-time fine-tuning) is plausible but not tested. Moreover, the Visual CLIP metric — cos[(M(B')-M(B)), (M(A')-M(A))] — could in principle be satisfied by an output that copies the appearance of A' rather than by learning the edit direction; please discuss this risk and report additional metrics that separate edit fidelity from appearance leakage. The six claimed edit types also need per-category quantitative results, not only qualitative figures.
  3. [Section 4.4, Figures 8 and 9] The reusability and disentanglement claims are supported only by qualitative examples. The random-exchange consistency regularization implicitly encourages H(A,A') = -H(A',A), but this is demonstrated only for flip-augmented pairs and does not establish that the extracted LoRA is free of appearance information for arbitrary queries. Please add a quantitative disentanglement evaluation, such as measuring the perceptual distance between the edited output and the query in regions that should remain unchanged, and the edit-direction alignment separately on unseen queries. Without such metrics, the claim that 'the learned instruction-specific LoRA only encodes desired visual instruction' remains unsupported.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Appendix A] The LoRA rank r and the LoRA scale factor are never specified, and the total number of trainable parameters in the hypernetwork is not reported. These hyperparameters directly control the capacity of the generated LoRA and thereby affect the plausibility of the reverse-inversion assumption. Please provide these values, along with the random-exchange probability used during training, so that the experimental setup is reproducible and the scope of the claimed 'parameter-free' or hyperparameter-insensitive behavior is clear.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] Please report the wall-clock training time and the total model size, in addition to the number of GPUs and epochs.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (6)-(7)] The notation Θ(x_t, t, B, H(A,A')) is slightly ambiguous: clarify that H(A,A') is injected as LoRA weights into the UNet, while B is the spatial condition.
  3. [Section 4.3, user study] The user study reports only aggregate preference percentages (87.4% for LoC). Please report the number of votes per condition, inter-rater agreement, and the distribution across the six edit types, as well as whether the preference is statistically significant.
  4. [Section 4.4, two-stage training] The ablation for stage-2 fine-tuning reports only the Visual CLIP score (0.193 to 0.214). It would be more informative to report LPIPS and FID as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LoRA-of-Change derivation is self-contained and evaluated against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a hypernetwork H(A,A') generates an instruction-specific LoRA that, applied to a frozen InstructPix2Pix model G, edits an arbitrary query B into B'. The training objectives in Eqs. (6) and (7) directly minimize reconstruction losses on flip-augmented paired data, and the test-time procedure in Eq. (8) uses the same trained H without fine-tuning. No fitted parameter is subsequently renamed as a prediction: the learned LoRA is the model output, and its quality is measured by external metrics (LPIPS, FID, Visual CLIP over CLIP difference vectors, and a user study) on an InstructPix2Pix test subset. The reverse-loss term in Eq. (7), G(-H(A,A'), B') ≈ B, is an unproven design assumption rather than a circular reduction: it is not derived from the definition of LoRA, but it is also not identified with the quantity being predicted. The only self-citation, DAC [25], is used solely as a source of test images, not to justify the core mechanism. Ablations (Figs. 6 and 9) test the contribution of the reverse loss and random exchange empirically. Nothing in the derivation equates an output to an input by construction, so no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The method rests on several domain assumptions rather than free physical parameters: the capacity of a single LoRA to encode arbitrary changes, the invertibility of LoRA under negation, and the sufficiency of horizontal-flip paired data. Architecture and training hyperparameters are partly specified; the LoRA rank and random-exchange probability are missing. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • LoRA rank r = not reported
    Appendix A defines U_A in R^{d x r} and U_B in R^{r x d} with 'r << d', but never states the value used. This controls the capacity of the instruction-specific adapter and is needed for reproduction.
  • LoRA scale factor = not reported
    The paper does not state how the generated LoRA delta is scaled before injection into the attention layers; this directly affects editing strength.
  • Random exchange probability = not reported
    Section 3.2 says the before-after pair is 'randomly exchanged' during training, but no probability is given. The consistency regularization strength depends on it.
  • Reverse loss weight = implicitly 1.0
    Equations (6) and (7) appear as two equally weighted terms; no balancing weight lambda is reported, so the relative strength of reverse training is unstated.
  • Decoder depth M and heads = M=6, heads=8
    Section 4.1 fixes the hypernetwork decoder to 6 blocks and 8 attention heads; these are hand-chosen architecture parameters that affect LoRA generation capacity.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Diffusion objective with x0 prediction and DDIM sampling are valid training and inference frameworks.
    Used in Eqs. (6)-(8); these are standard results from Ho et al. [11] and Song et al. [24], treated as background.
  • domain assumption A single LoRA can express the change in any before-after pair.
    Section 3.1 design; no capacity analysis or failure cases are given.
  • ad hoc to paper Negating the generated LoRA inverts the edit.
    Section 3.2, Eq. (7); load-bearing but unproven. The paper does not derive this inverse relationship.
  • domain assumption Horizontal flips of A,A' are a sufficient proxy for all query-target pairs during training.
    Section 3.2; paired-data training uses flips, and assumes generalization to unseen edits.
  • domain assumption Frozen InstructPix2Pix can execute the instruction when conditioned on query and LoRA.
    All instruction-specific knowledge must be injected via the generated LoRA, with base weights frozen.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LoRA of Change: Learning to Generate LoRA for the Editing Instruction from A Single Before-After Image Pair." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4KJGVQDG

@misc{pith2026241119156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LoRA of Change: Learning to Generate LoRA for the Editing Instruction from A Single Before-After Image Pair},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4KJGVQDG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19156}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose the LoRA of Change (LoC) framework for image editing with visual instructions, i.e., before-after image pairs. Compared to the ambiguities, insufficient specificity, and diverse interpretations of natural language, visual instructions can accurately reflect users' intent. Building on the success of LoRA in text-based image editing and generation, we dynamically learn an instruction-specific LoRA to encode the "change" in a before-after image pair, enhancing the interpretability and reusability of our model. Furthermore, generalizable models for image editing with visual instructions typically require quad data, i.e., a before-after image pair, along with query and target images. Due to the scarcity of such quad data, existing models are limited to a narrow range of visual instructions. To overcome this limitation, we introduce the LoRA Reverse optimization technique, enabling large-scale training with paired data alone. Extensive qualitative and quantitative experiments demonstrate that our model produces high-quality images that align with user intent and support a broad spectrum of real-world visual instructions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19156 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image editing with before-after image pair instructions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Information leakage without LoRA Reverse training. visual instructions. Additionally, the tuning process for in￾struction inversion is often time-consuming. Our Algorithm — LoRA of Change. To tackle the above￾mentioned issues, we propose the LoRA of Change (LoC) framework as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of qualitative examples across the 6 editing types between our LoC and two SOTAs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of LoRA of Change (LoC) framework. (a) shows that the hypernetwork H generates the instruction-specific LoRA with the before-after image pair < A, A′ > as inputs. (b) presents the LoRA reverse training. With the generated LoRA ∆, the red arrows → indicate that…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hypernetwork H for LoRA generation. The transformer decoder D consists of M = 6 blocks. To this end, we derive the instruction-specific LoRA ∆ for the before-after image pair < A, A′ >. Weight Initialization. For the ViT encoder, we load the pre-trained weights on Imag…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation on LoRA Reverse training. • Visual CLIP score [19] to evaluate how faithfully the editing adheres to the before-after image pair with cos[(M(B ′ ) − M(B)),(M(A ′ ) − M(A))] where M is the CLIP model. • Frechet inception distance (FID) to evaluate the quality o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: User study statistics. generated by Analogist, VISII, and our LoC, which were randomly shuffled. Evaluators were asked to choose the best result based on its similarity to B and its alignment with the visual in￾struction in (A, A′ ). The user study results, shown in […
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ablation on random exchange from < A, A′ > to < A′ , A > for LoRA Reverse training. semble A ′ in most cases (e.g., rows 1, 3, and 4 in the fig￾ure), suggesting that the learned instruction-specific LoRA captures appearance features from the before-after image pairs ra…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative comparison on InstructPix2Pix dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The ith self/cross-attention layer of UNet after injecting LoRAs. W1 , W2 , W3 , W4 are pre-trained weights of the query, key, value, and output projection layers individually. 𝑩 𝑨 ! 𝑨 LoC Analogist VISII PromptGIP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of qualitative examples across the 6 editing types between our LoC and two SOTAs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Spanning the Visual Analogy Space with a Weight Basis of LoRAs

    cs.CV 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A learnable basis of LoRA adapters, mixed by an encoder at inference time, applies visual analogies to new images and beats single-adapter baselines on a custom benchmark.

  2. PairEdit: Learning Semantic Variations for Exemplar-based Image Editing

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    PairEdit trains two LoRA adapters on a pretrained diffusion model to capture the semantic direction between paired source-target images, enabling text-free, controllable image editing from as few as one pair.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Dosovitskiy Alexey. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2010.11929, 2020. 4

    arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    Visual prompting via image inpaint- ing

    Amir Bar, Yossi Gandelsman, Trevor Darrell, Amir Glober- son, and Alexei Efros. Visual prompting via image inpaint- ing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:25005–25017, 2022. 1, 2, 4

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    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, 5, 6

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    FastEdit: Fast Text-Guided Single-Image Editing via Semantic-Aware Diffusion Fine-Tuning

    Zhi Chen, Zecheng Zhao, Yadan Luo, and Zi Huang. Fastedit: Fast text-guided single-image editing via semantic-aware diffusion fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03355, 2024. 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Concept sliders: Lora adap- tors for precise control in diffusion models

    Rohit Gandikota, Joanna Materzynska, Tingrui Zhou, Anto- nio Torralba, and David Bau. Concept sliders: Lora adap- tors for precise control in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12092, 2023. 2

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Renoise: Real image inversion through iterative noising, 2024

    Daniel Garibi, Or Patashnik, Andrey V oynov, Hadar Averbuch-Elor, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Renoise: Real image inversion through iterative noising, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Seed-data-edit technical report: A hybrid dataset for in- structional image editing

    Yuying Ge, Sijie Zhao, Chen Li, Yixiao Ge, and Ying Shan. Seed-data-edit technical report: A hybrid dataset for in- structional image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04007,

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Mix-of-show: Decentralized low- rank adaptation for multi-concept customization of diffusion models

    Yuchao Gu, Xintao Wang, Jay Zhangjie Wu, Yujun Shi, Yun- peng Chen, Zihan Fan, Wuyou Xiao, Rui Zhao, Shuning Chang, Weijia Wu, et al. Mix-of-show: Decentralized low- rank adaptation for multi-concept customization of diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 2, 4

    work page 2024

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Analogist: Out-of-the-box visual in-context learning with image diffusion model

    Zheng Gu, Shiyuan Yang, Jing Liao, Jing Huo, and Yang Gao. Analogist: Out-of-the-box visual in-context learning with image diffusion model. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 43(4):1–15, 2024. 1, 4, 7

    2024

  2. [10]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    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. 5

    2020

  4. [12]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. 4, 5, 11

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Smartedit: Exploring complex instruction-based image editing with multimodal large lan- guage models

    Yuzhou Huang, Liangbin Xie, Xintao Wang, Ziyang Yuan, Xiaodong Cun, Yixiao Ge, Jiantao Zhou, Chao Dong, Rui Huang, Ruimao Zhang, et al. Smartedit: Exploring complex instruction-based image editing with multimodal large lan- guage models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conferen...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6007–6017, 2023. 2

    2023

  7. [15]

    Visual instruction tuning, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning, 2023. 7

    2023

  8. [16]

    Unifying image processing as visual prompting question answering

    Yihao Liu, Xiangyu Chen, Xianzheng Ma, Xintao Wang, Jiantao Zhou, Yu Qiao, and Chao Dong. Unifying image processing as visual prompting question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10513, 2023. 4

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Instructgie: Towards generalizable image editing

    Zichong Meng, Changdi Yang, Jun Liu, Hao Tang, Pu Zhao, and Yanzhi Wang. Instructgie: Towards generalizable image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05018, 2024. 1, 4, 6

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Editable image elements for controllable synthesis

    Jiteng Mu, Micha ¨el Gharbi, Richard Zhang, Eli Shecht- man, Nuno Vasconcelos, Xiaolong Wang, and Taesung Park. Editable image elements for controllable synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16029, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Visual instruction inversion: Image editing via visual prompting

    Thao Nguyen, Yuheng Li, Utkarsh Ojha, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction inversion: Image editing via visual prompting. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 2023. 1, 4, 7

    2023

  12. [20]

    Effective real image editing with accelerated iter- ative diffusion inversion

    Zhihong Pan, Riccardo Gherardi, Xiufeng Xie, and Stephen Huang. Effective real image editing with accelerated iter- ative diffusion inversion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15912– 15921, 2023. 2

    2023

  13. [21]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2

    2022

  14. [22]

    Ziplora: Any subject in any style by effectively merging loras

    Viraj Shah, Nataniel Ruiz, Forrester Cole, Erika Lu, Svet- lana Lazebnik, Yuanzhen Li, and Varun Jampani. Ziplora: Any subject in any style by effectively merging loras. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 422–438. Springer, 2025. 2, 4

    2025

  15. [23]

    Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and genera- tion tasks

    Shelly Sheynin, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Yuval Kirstain, Amit Zohar, Oron Ashual, Devi Parikh, and Yaniv Taigman. Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and genera- tion tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024. 2

    2024

  16. [24]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 2, 5 9

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Doubly abductive coun- terfactual inference for text-based image editing

    Xue Song, Jiequan Cui, Hanwang Zhang, Jingjing Chen, Richang Hong, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Doubly abductive coun- terfactual inference for text-based image editing. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 9162–9171, 2024. 2, 6

    2024

  18. [26]

    Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation

    Narek Tumanyan, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1921–1930, 2023. 2

    1921

  19. [27]

    Edict: Exact diffusion inversion via coupled transformations

    Bram Wallace, Akash Gokul, and Nikhil Naik. Edict: Exact diffusion inversion via coupled transformations. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22532–22541, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Images speak in images: A generalist painter for in-context visual learning

    Xinlong Wang, Wen Wang, Yue Cao, Chunhua Shen, and Tiejun Huang. Images speak in images: A generalist painter for in-context visual learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6830–6839, 2023. 2, 4

    2023

  21. [29]

    In- context learning unlocked for diffusion models

    Zhendong Wang, Yifan Jiang, Yadong Lu, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, Zhangyang Wang, Mingyuan Zhou, et al. In- context learning unlocked for diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:8542–8562,

  22. [30]

    Mixture of lora experts

    Xun Wu, Shaohan Huang, and Furu Wei. Mixture of lora experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13628, 2024. 2, 4

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Imagebrush: Learning visual in-context instructions for exemplar-based image ma- nipulation

    Yifan Yang, Houwen Peng, Yifei Shen, Yuqing Yang, Han Hu, Lili Qiu, Hideki Koike, et al. Imagebrush: Learning visual in-context instructions for exemplar-based image ma- nipulation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 1, 4

    2024

  24. [32]

    Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction- guided image editing

    Kai Zhang, Lingbo Mo, Wenhu Chen, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction- guided image editing. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 36, 2024. 2, 5, 6

    2024

  25. [33]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3836–3847, 2023. 1, 4

    2023

  26. [34]

    Sine: Single image editing with text- to-image diffusion models

    Zhixing Zhang, Ligong Han, Arnab Ghosh, Dimitris N Metaxas, and Jian Ren. Sine: Single image editing with text- to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6027–6037, 2023. 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    Instructbrush: Learning attention-based in- struction optimization for image editing

    Ruoyu Zhao, Qingnan Fan, Fei Kou, Shuai Qin, Hong Gu, Wei Wu, Pengcheng Xu, Mingrui Zhu, Nannan Wang, and Xinbo Gao. Instructbrush: Learning attention-based in- struction optimization for image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18660, 2024. 6 10 The Appendix is organized as f...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.