Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Continual Learning of Personalized Generative Face Models with Experience Replay

T0 review · 4 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 a replay buffer selected by minimizing the average distance from available StyleGAN latent codes to the convex hull of the buffer's latent codes reduces catastrophic forgetting in personalized 2D and 3D face models…

desk verdict A useful new continual-learning formulation and a plausible hull-based buffer heuristic, but the headline forgetting-reduction margin is a single-run point estimate over very few identities. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02627 v1 pith:HVDZJG77 submitted 2024-12-03 cs.CV

Annie N. Wang , Luchao Qi , Roni Sengupta This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords continuallearningexperiencereplaycatastrophicforgettingpersonalizedgenerativemodelsStyleGANlatentspaceconvexhullfacegeneration3D
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 introduces a continual learning setting in which a personalized generative face model is updated as new batches of a person's photos arrive over time, and it shows that naive sequential fine-tuning forgets earlier appearances. It reports that with a relatively large replay buffer, simple random experience replay already suppresses most forgetting, but at a 30% buffer-to-timestamps ratio random replay still forgets. The proposed algorithm, ER-Hull, chooses which past photos to store by minimizing the average distance from all available latent codes to the convex hull of the stored latent codes in StyleGAN's latent space, and the paper reports about a 20% reduction in forgetting versus random replay for both 2D and 3D personalized face models. The paper also contributes a dataset of five celebrities across ten timestamps and an evaluation protocol based on reconstruction and synthesis metrics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the convex hull of the latent codes of the images kept in the replay buffer, defined inside the $W+$ latent space of a pretrained StyleGAN. ER-Hull selects the buffer $R_t$ that minimizes the sum over available data batches of the squared distances from each batch's latent codes to $\mathrm{Hull}(R_t)$, with a normalization for how many distinct timestamps are covered, and it searches over candidate buffers with RANSAC. The hypothesis doing the work is that an image whose latent code lies closest to the hull of the remaining buffer is the safest to discard, because the hull can interpolate that appearance later. This geometric proxy is what converts memory selection into a covering problem in latent space.

What would settle it

Run the same continual fine-tuning protocol with ER-Hull's selected buffers replaced by random buffers that satisfy the same timestamp-coverage constraint, repeated over many seeds; if forgetting on held-out test images from all past timestamps matches ER-Hull's, then the convex-hull rule is not the cause of the reported gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the informativeness of a replay buffer for a personalized face model admits a geometric measure: keep the buffer $R_t$ whose latent anchors form a convex hull minimizing the average squared distance to every latent code currently available, normalized by the number of unique timestamps represented (Eqs. 3 and 4). With a buffer of 3 images across 10 timestamps, ER-Hull outperforms random sampling and a k-means baseline on both inversion and synthesis, cutting forgetting by roughly 20% in LPIPS and FID while also improving average incremental performance for 2D MyStyle and 3D My3DGen models. At a 1:1 buffer-to-timestamp ratio, both replay methods nearly tie the off-line upper bound, making the selection criterion matter mainly in the low-storage regime. The paper frames the contribution as the first domain-incremental continual learning study for unconditional generative models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a replay buffer whose compressed internal coordinates form a convex hull closest to the other available coordinates is the one that best preserves the model's memory of past appearances; this geometric proxy is stated as a hypothesis and never derived from how fine-tuning actually forgets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ER-Hull's gain is real, then at small buffer-to-timestamp ratios the content of the replay buffer, not just its size, determines how much a personalized face model forgets.
  • At larger ratios, experience replay becomes easy enough that random selection already approaches the offline upper bound, so geometry-aware selection is only needed for storage-constrained deployment.
  • The same benefit transfers to 3D personalized face models, where forgetting is more severe, indicating the geometric memory policy is not specific to 2D StyleGAN tuning.
  • Extending from 10 to 20 timestamps at a 30% buffer ratio keeps the advantage (FID forgetting 29.8 for ER-Hull vs 51.0 for ER-Rand on one identity), which points toward usefulness in long-term deployments.
  • The storage cost of the method is just the replay buffer itself, so the hull selection buys better retention without requiring all past images to be kept.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the convex-hull objective can be read as picking a buffer that spans the observed appearance manifold; a testable next step would be to ablate the hull against simpler summaries such as the centroid or k-medoids of the latent codes to isolate which geometric property carries the memory benefit.
  • Beyond the paper, the storage arithmetic implies that deployments with hundreds of timestamps would need buffer ratios far below 30%, where random replay is known to fail; this suggests combining hull-based selection with compressed latent anchors instead of raw images.
  • Beyond the paper, the method is demonstrated only on face GANs, so a natural extension is to test whether the hull criterion transfers to non-face generative models whose latent spaces are less disentangled, where the geometric proxy would be weaker.
  • Beyond the paper, ER-Hull's RANSAC search costs about 40 minutes per timestamp, so an incremental or closed-form update of the hull buffer as new timestamps arrive is a practical direction 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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a continual learning setting for personalized generative face models: a StyleGAN (or EG3D) generator is fine-tuned sequentially on batches of a single person's photos that differ in style, lighting, and pose across timestamps. To combat catastrophic forgetting, the authors propose two experience replay strategies. ER-Rand is a balanced reservoir sampler. ER-Hull selects the replay buffer by minimizing the average distance from all currently available latent codes to the convex hull of the buffer's latent codes (Eqs. 3 and 4), using a RANSAC approximation. The paper evaluates these methods on a new dataset of five celebrities with ten timestamps, for 2D (MyStyle) and 3D (My3DGen) personalization, using reconstruction (LPIPS, ID) and synthesis (FID, ID) metrics. The central empirical claim is that at a buffer size of 3, ER-Hull reduces forgetting by roughly 20% relative to ER-Rand, while at larger buffer sizes both methods approach the upper bound.

Significance. The paper identifies a practical and understudied problem: continual personalization of generative face models in an open-world setting. The new dataset, evaluation protocol, and the two replay baselines are valuable assets for future research. If the reported advantage of ER-Hull is real, it provides a simple, geometric memory-selection rule that could be useful for small-storage continual learning. The paper is also honest about its limitations, including the remaining gap to the upper bound and the computational costs. However, the significance currently rests on a small set of single-run experiments whose statistical robustness is not demonstrated, and the proposed selection rule is not causally validated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1 and Tables 1–4] All reported numbers are single-run averages over five identities (four for 3D) with no error bars, no random seeds, and no repeated runs. The headline 3D LPIPS forgetting improvement (0.78 vs 0.98 in Table 3) is driven largely by one identity, Michael B. Jordan (0.73 vs 1.22), while IU shows almost no gap (0.65 vs 0.67). With this sample size, the claimed ~20% reduction could be within run-to-run noise. Please provide results over multiple seeds or at least standard errors/confidence intervals for the buffer-3 comparisons, which carry the paper's main claim.
  2. [§3.4, Eq. (4)] The convex-hull selection rule is introduced as a hypothesis ('We hypothesize that the best image to discard from the replay buffer is the one whose latent code is closest to the convex hull of the remaining latent anchors') and is never connected to actual forgetting dynamics. The comparison between ER-Hull and ER-Rand also differs in the candidate-buffer constraints and the timestamp-count normalization in Eq. (4), so an observed improvement cannot be attributed specifically to the geometric objective. Please include an ablation that uses the same constraints and normalization as ER-Hull but selects buffers randomly, or report a correlation between the Eq. (4) objective and measured forgetting across timestamps.
  3. [§3.4, ER-Hull constraints] The sentence describing the buffer constraints appears self-contradictory: 'we additionally constrain the algorithm to only consider possible replay buffers that contain at least one sample from each previously seen batch of data when k < t and no more than one example from each batch when k ≥ t.' For k < t, it is impossible for a buffer of size k to contain at least one sample from each of the t previously seen batches. The conditions are likely inverted, and this error defines the search space of the proposed method. Please correct it and make the exact constraint unambiguous.
  4. [§4.3 and Table 4] The text states that ER-Hull is 'slightly better than ER-Rand for all 4 celebrities for both reconstruction and synthesis.' Table 4 shows that for Margot Robbie, ER-Hull has synthesis forgetting FID of 31.2 while ER-Rand has 30.5, so ER-Hull is worse on that metric. This factual mismatch should be corrected. Additionally, the 20-timestamp experiment (Table 5) uses a single identity and only reports synthesis forgetting with no variance estimates; this is too limited to support the claim that the method scales to longer deployments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4, first paragraph of ER-Hull] The text says 'Our next sampling algorithm ER-Random (Fig. 3)' but the algorithm described and shown in Fig. 3 is ER-Hull; please correct the name.
  2. [§4.2] The text refers to 'ER-Hill' (in the paragraph on buffer size 10); this is a typo for 'ER-Hull'.
  3. [Eq. (3)] The notation d(Xj, Hull(Rt)) is used both for the full batch from timestamp j and for the subset of its samples that are available in Xt ∪ Rt−1. Please clarify the definition for j < t, where only the retained samples in the replay buffer are available.
  4. [Table captions] The captions say the metrics are 'scaled by ×10' without specifying which columns; for example, LPIPS values in Table 3 (e.g., 1.17 for the lower bound) suggest that LPIPS is also scaled. Please state the scaling explicitly for each metric.
  5. [§3.5, Synthesis evaluation] The synthesis task says latent codes are sampled from 'the convex hull of Xt'; please clarify that this means the convex hull of the latent codes corresponding to the images in Xt.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ER-Hull is an empirically evaluated heuristic, not a fitted identity or a self-citation-forced result.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim—that ER-Hull reduces forgetting by roughly 20% relative to ER-Rand at small buffer sizes—is an experimental comparison, not a derivation from first principles, and I find no step in which a claimed result is equivalent to its own input. The buffer objective in Eq. 4 minimizes the average squared distance from available latent codes to the convex hull of candidate buffers; this objective is not the same as the reported evaluation metrics (LPIPS, FID, ID, AIP, forgetting), nor is it fitted to test-set values. Section 3.4 explicitly labels the geometric proxy as a hypothesis ('We hypothesize that the best image to discard from the replay buffer is the one whose latent code is closest to the convex hull of the remaining latent anchors'), which is an unproven heuristic with a potential causal gap to forgetting dynamics; that is a validity or robustness concern, not circularity. The only self-citation with author overlap (My3DGen, reference [33]) is used as a backbone model and baseline and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem; the ER-Hull-versus-ER-Rand relative comparison would stand or fall independently of that prior paper. Hyperparameters lambda_R=1 and N=5000 are fixed and shared across replay methods, so no tuned parameter is renamed as a prediction. The limitations the authors themselves state—small timestamp counts, limited identities, and no variance estimates—bear on statistical strength, not on whether the derivation reduces to its own inputs. Verdict: no significant circularity, score 0.

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

The method relies on a small number of hand-set hyperparameters (lambda_R, N) and on the geometric proxy that convex hull distance equals informativeness; no additional entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda_R (replay loss weight) = 1
    Hyperparameter weighting the replay buffer loss in Eq (2); set to 1 so that 50% of training images come from the replay buffer, not fitted to data.
  • N (RANSAC iterations) = 5000
    Number of randomly sampled replay buffer combinations considered in Eq (4); a finite approximation to the exhaustive search, chosen by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The convex hull of anchor latent codes in StyleGAN provides a well-behaved identity-preserving prior and minimizing distance to it is a good proxy for information preservation.
    Stated as intuition in Section 3.4; no derivation connects convex hull distance to actual forgetting under fine-tuning.
  • domain assumption The replay buffer's retained samples (with at least one per previously seen timestamp when possible) sufficiently represent all past data distributions for training.
    The distance computation in Eq (3) only uses samples in X_t and R_{t-1}, so past batches are represented only by the few retained images; if those are not representative, the objective is miscalibrated.
  • domain assumption Each timestamp's images form a homogeneous batch from a single distribution, and distributions change between timestamps.
    Problem formulation in Section 3.2; the dataset is built from single videos per timestamp, so batch homogeneity is an approximation.
  • domain assumption Optimizing the reconstruction objective with a pretrained encoder (pSp) yields latent anchors that faithfully represent the input images.
    Training protocol in Section 3.3 relies on inversion quality of the pretrained encoder; poor inversion would weaken both replay selection and evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continual Learning of Personalized Generative Face Models with Experience Replay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVDZJG77

@misc{pith2026241202627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continual Learning of Personalized Generative Face Models with Experience Replay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVDZJG77}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02627}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel continual learning problem: how to sequentially update the weights of a personalized 2D and 3D generative face model as new batches of photos in different appearances, styles, poses, and lighting are captured regularly. We observe that naive sequential fine-tuning of the model leads to catastrophic forgetting of past representations of the individual's face. We then demonstrate that a simple random sampling-based experience replay method is effective at mitigating catastrophic forgetting when a relatively large number of images can be stored and replayed. However, for long-term deployment of these models with relatively smaller storage, this simple random sampling-based replay technique also forgets past representations. Thus, we introduce a novel experience replay algorithm that combines random sampling with StyleGAN's latent space to represent the buffer as an optimal convex hull. We observe that our proposed convex hull-based experience replay is more effective in preventing forgetting than a random sampling baseline and the lower bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02627 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Open-world deployment and training of personalized generative models [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram of the ER-Rand algorithm. We randomly sam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of ER-Hull. We perform RANSAC over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance deterioration of the final personalized (a) 2D generative model and (b) 3D generative model trained at t=10 on all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A decoupled 3d fa- cial shape model by adversarial training

    Victoria Fern ´andez Abrevaya, Adnane Boukhayma, Ste- fanie Wuhrer, and Edmond Boyer. A decoupled 3d fa- cial shape model by adversarial training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9419–9428, 2019. 3

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Few-shot generative modelling with generative matching networks

    Sergey Bartunov and Dmitry Vetrov. Few-shot generative modelling with generative matching networks. In Interna- tional Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 670–678. PMLR, 2018. 1, 3

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Triplanenet: An encoder for eg3d inversion

    Ananta R Bhattarai, Matthias Nießner, and Artem Sev- astopolsky. Triplanenet: An encoder for eg3d inversion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Appli- cations of Computer Vision, pages 3055–3065, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Coresets via bilevel optimization for continual learning and stream- ing

    Zal ´an Borsos, Mojmir Mutny, and Andreas Krause. Coresets via bilevel optimization for continual learning and stream- ing. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:14879–14890, 2020. 3

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Rethinking experience replay: a bag of tricks for continual learning

    Pietro Buzzega, Matteo Boschini, Angelo Porrello, and Si- mone Calderara. Rethinking experience replay: a bag of tricks for continual learning. In2020 25th International Con- ference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) , pages 2180–2187. IEEE, 2021. 3

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Efficient geometry-aware 3d generative adversarial networks

    Eric R Chan, Connor Z Lin, Matthew A Chan, Koki Nagano, Boxiao Pan, Shalini De Mello, Orazio Gallo, Leonidas J Guibas, Jonathan Tremblay, Sameh Khamis, et al. Efficient geometry-aware 3d generative adversarial networks. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16123–16133, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 8

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    On tiny episodic memo- ries in continual learning

    Arslan Chaudhry, Marcus Rohrbach, Mohamed Elhoseiny, Thalaiyasingam Ajanthan, Puneet K Dokania, Philip HS Torr, and Marc’Aurelio Ranzato. On tiny episodic memo- ries in continual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.10486,

    arXiv 1902

  8. [8]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 34:8780–8794, 2021. 2

    2021

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Image quality assessment: Unifying structure and texture similarity

    Keyan Ding, Kede Ma, Shiqi Wang, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: Unifying structure and texture similarity. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and ma- chine intelligence, 44(5):2567–2581, 2020. 5

    2020

  2. [10]

    Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks

    Robert M French. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends in cognitive sciences, 3(4):128–135, 1999. 3

    1999

  3. [11]

    An empirical investigation of catas- trophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks

    Ian J Goodfellow, Mehdi Mirza, Da Xiao, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. An empirical investigation of catas- trophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6211, 2013. 3

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017. 5

    2017

  5. [13]

    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. 2

    2020

  6. [14]

    On the” steer- ability” of generative adversarial networks

    Ali Jahanian, Lucy Chai, and Phillip Isola. On the” steer- ability” of generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.07171, 2019. 1

    1907 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gradient- based editing of memory examples for online task-free con- tinual learning

    Xisen Jin, Arka Sadhu, Junyi Du, and Xiang Ren. Gradient- based editing of memory examples for online task-free con- tinual learning. In Neural Information Processing Systems ,

  8. [16]

    Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation

    Tero Karras, Timo Aila, Samuli Laine, and Jaakko Lehtinen. Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10196, 2017. 1

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Training generative adver- sarial networks with limited data

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Samuli Laine, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Training generative adver- sarial networks with limited data. Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 33:12104–12114, 2020. 1

    2020

  10. [18]

    Alias-free generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Samuli Laine, Erik H ¨ark¨onen, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Alias-free generative adversarial networks. Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 34:852–863, 2021. 1

    2021

  11. [19]

    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. 1, 2, 8

    2019

  12. [20]

    Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8110–8119, 2020. 1, 2, 4

    2020

  13. [21]

    One millisecond face alignment with an ensemble of regression trees

    Vahid Kazemi and Josephine Sullivan. One millisecond face alignment with an ensemble of regression trees. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1867–1874, 2014. 6

    2014

  14. [22]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neu- ral networks

    James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska- Barwinska, et al. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neu- ral networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sc...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Gradient episodic memory for continual learning

    David Lopez-Paz and Marc’Aurelio Ranzato. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. Advances in neu- ral information processing systems, 30, 2017. 1, 3, 5

    2017

  16. [24]

    Time-travel rephotography

    Xuan Luo, Xuaner Zhang, Paul Yoo, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, Jason Lawrence, and Steven M Seitz. Time-travel rephotography. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 40(6):1–12, 2021. 5

    2021

  17. [25]

    Pulse: Self-supervised photo upsam- pling via latent space exploration of generative models

    Sachit Menon, Alexandru Damian, Shijia Hu, Nikhil Ravi, and Cynthia Rudin. Pulse: Self-supervised photo upsam- pling via latent space exploration of generative models. In Proceedings of the ieee/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2437–2445, 2020. 5

    2020

  18. [26]

    Hologan: Unsupervised learning of 3d representations from natural images

    Thu Nguyen-Phuoc, Chuan Li, Lucas Theis, Christian Richardt, and Yong-Liang Yang. Hologan: Unsupervised learning of 3d representations from natural images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7588–7597, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  19. [27]

    Giraffe: Represent- ing scenes as compositional generative neural feature fields

    Michael Niemeyer and Andreas Geiger. Giraffe: Represent- ing scenes as compositional generative neural feature fields. 9 In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11453–11464, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  20. [28]

    Mystyle: A personalized generative prior

    Yotam Nitzan, Kfir Aberman, Qiurui He, Orly Liba, Michal Yarom, Yossi Gandelsman, Inbar Mosseri, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Mystyle: A personalized generative prior. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 41(6):1–10, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

    2022

  21. [29]

    Face identity disentanglement via latent space mapping

    Yotam Nitzan, Amit Bermano, Yangyan Li, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Face identity disentanglement via latent space mapping. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07728, 2020. 2

    2005 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Stylesdf: High-resolution 3d-consistent image and geome- try generation

    Roy Or-El, Xuan Luo, Mengyi Shan, Eli Shecht- man, Jeong Joon Park, and Ira Kemelmacher-Shlizerman. Stylesdf: High-resolution 3d-consistent image and geome- try generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13503– 13513...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Styleclip: Text-driven manipulation of stylegan imagery

    Or Patashnik, Zongze Wu, Eli Shechtman, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Dani Lischinski. Styleclip: Text-driven manipulation of stylegan imagery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 2085–2094,

  24. [32]

    Gdumb: A simple approach that questions our progress in continual learning

    Ameya Prabhu, Philip Torr, and Puneet Dokania. Gdumb: A simple approach that questions our progress in continual learning. In The European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), August 2020. 3

    2020

  25. [33]

    Wang, Shengze Wang, and Roni Sengupta

    Luchao Qi, Jiaye Wu, Annie N. Wang, Shengze Wang, and Roni Sengupta. My3dgen: A scalable personalized 3d gen- erative model, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

    2024

  26. [34]

    icarl: Incremental classifier and representation learning

    Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Alexander Kolesnikov, Georg Sperl, and Christoph H Lampert. icarl: Incremental classifier and representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2001–2010, 2017. 1, 3

    2001

  27. [35]

    Encoding in style: a stylegan encoder for image-to-image translation

    Elad Richardson, Yuval Alaluf, Or Patashnik, Yotam Nitzan, Yaniv Azar, Stav Shapiro, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Encoding in style: a stylegan encoder for image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 2287–22...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Learning to learn without forgetting by maximizing transfer and minimizing interference

    Matthew Riemer, Ignacio Cases, Robert Ajemian, Miao Liu, Irina Rish, Yuhai Tu, and Gerald Tesauro. Learning to learn without forgetting by maximizing transfer and minimizing interference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.11910, 2018. 3

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Continual learning in reinforcement en- vironments

    Mark Bishop Ring. Continual learning in reinforcement en- vironments. The University of Texas at Austin, 1994. 3

    1994

  30. [38]

    Pivotal tuning for latent-based editing of real im- ages

    Daniel Roich, Ron Mokady, Amit H Bermano, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Pivotal tuning for latent-based editing of real im- ages. ACM Transactions on graphics (TOG) , 42(1):1–13,

  31. [39]

    Continual learning of 3d point cloud gen- erators

    Michał Sadowski, Karol J Piczak, Przemysław Spurek, and Tomasz Trzci´nski. Continual learning of 3d point cloud gen- erators. In Neural Information Processing: 28th Interna- tional Conference, ICONIP 2021, Sanur, Bali, Indonesia, December 8–12, 2021, Proceedings, Part I 28 , p...

    2021

  32. [40]

    Graf: Generative radiance fields for 3d-aware im- age synthesis

    Katja Schwarz, Yiyi Liao, Michael Niemeyer, and Andreas Geiger. Graf: Generative radiance fields for 3d-aware im- age synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20154–20166, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  33. [41]

    Contin- ual learning in generative adversarial nets

    Ari Seff, Alex Beatson, Daniel Suo, and Han Liu. Contin- ual learning in generative adversarial nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08395, 2017. 1, 3

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A benchmark of facial recognition pipelines and co-usability performances of mod- ules

    Sefik Serengil and Alper Ozpinar. A benchmark of facial recognition pipelines and co-usability performances of mod- ules. Bilisim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 17(2):95–107, 2024. 6

    2024

  35. [43]

    In- terpreting the latent space of gans for semantic face editing

    Yujun Shen, Jinjin Gu, Xiaoou Tang, and Bolei Zhou. In- terpreting the latent space of gans for semantic face editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 9243–9252, 2020. 1

    2020

  36. [44]

    Interfacegan: Interpreting the disentangled face representa- tion learned by gans

    Yujun Shen, Ceyuan Yang, Xiaoou Tang, and Bolei Zhou. Interfacegan: Interpreting the disentangled face representa- tion learned by gans. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(4):2004–2018, 2020. 2

    2004

  37. [45]

    Online class- incremental continual learning with adversarial shapley value

    Dongsub Shim, Zheda Mai, Jihwan Jeong, Scott San- ner, Hyunwoo Kim, and Jongseong Jang. Online class- incremental continual learning with adversarial shapley value. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 9630–9638, 2021. 3

    2021

  38. [46]

    Continual learning with deep generative replay

    Hanul Shin, Jung Kwon Lee, Jaehong Kim, and Jiwon Kim. Continual learning with deep generative replay. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 1

    2017

  39. [47]

    Few-shot class- incremental learning

    Xiaoyu Tao, Xiaopeng Hong, Xinyuan Chang, Songlin Dong, Xing Wei, and Yihong Gong. Few-shot class- incremental learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12183–12192, 2020. 1, 3

    2020

  40. [48]

    A comprehensive survey of continual learning: Theory, method and application

    Liyuan Wang, Xingxing Zhang, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. A comprehensive survey of continual learning: Theory, method and application. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024. 3, 5

    2024

  41. [49]

    Lifelong gan: Continual learn- ing for conditional image generation

    Mengyao Zhai, Lei Chen, Frederick Tung, Jiawei He, Megha Nawhal, and Greg Mori. Lifelong gan: Continual learn- ing for conditional image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 2759–2768, 2019. 1, 3

    2019

  42. [50]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 5 10

    2018

Pith tools

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