Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

PixelMan: Consistent Object Editing with Diffusion Models via Pixel Manipulation and Generation

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 Consistent object editing can be done in 16 inference steps without DDIM inversion or training by anchoring the output to a pixel-manipulated image and generating only the delta.

desk verdict A genuinely novel inference-time editing method with strong visuals, but the quantitative superiority claim rests on un-released code, tuned hyperparameters, and metrics partly inherited from the pixel-copy anchor. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14283 v2 pith:ORU3ZYN2 submitted 2024-12-18 cs.CV cs.AIcs.GR

Liyao Jiang , Negar Hassanpour , Mohammad Salameh , Mohammadreza Samadi , Jiao He , Fengyu Sun , Di Niu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.GR
keywords consistentobjecteditingdiffusionmodelsinversion-freetraining-freepixelmanipulationrepositioninginpaintingself-attentionleakage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes PixelMan, a method for consistent object editing—repositioning, resizing, or pasting an object while keeping its texture and the background intact—that needs neither retraining nor the DDIM inversion step most diffusion editors rely on. Its central move is to copy the source object to the target location directly in pixel space, encode that manipulated image as an anchor, and let a pretrained text-to-image diffusion model generate only the 'delta' needed to harmonize the pasted object and inpaint the vacated region. The authors report that 16 inference steps suffice to beat methods that typically require 50 steps, on object, background, and semantic consistency metrics over the COCOEE and ReS benchmarks. The system also introduces a leak-proof self-attention that stops the inpainted area from absorbing traces of the moved object or of similar objects.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the anchored delta update $z^{out}_0 = z^{man}_0 + (\hat{z}^{tgt}_0 - \hat{z}^{man}_0) \times (1 - m_{new})$, where $z^{man}_0$ is the anchor (the VAE-encoded pixel-manipulated image), $\hat{z}^{tgt}_0$ and $\hat{z}^{man}_0$ are the denoised-latent predictions from the target and pixel-manipulated branches at the current time step, and $m_{new}$ masks the object's new location so the anchor alone provides the object. Three supporting mechanisms make the delta meaningful: (i) all three branches are noised at each step with the same random Gaussian $\epsilon$ so the branches stay in correspondence; (ii) leak-proof self-attention sets the $QK^T$ entries for the source, target, and similar-object regions to $-\infty$ during the target branch's UNet call, preventing information leakage into the inpainted region; and (iii) editing guidance is applied directly to the target latents by gradient descent (GSN-style) rather than to the predicted noise, avoiding the extra inversion round that energy-guidance methods need.

What would settle it

Use independent random noise for the target and pixel-manipulated branches instead of the shared epsilon: if object-consistency scores (LPIPS and PSNR on the moved object) collapse or the inpainted region fills with structured artifacts, the shared-noise alignment is what carries the result. A complementary test is to move an object across a very large distance or onto a heavily textured background and check whether the moved object drifts in appearance while the vacated region shows ghost traces, indicating branch divergence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that consistent object editing can be reduced to a simple anchored update in latent space: at every time step the output latents are $z^{out}_0 = z^{man}_0 + \Delta z$, where $z^{man}_0$ is the VAE encoding of the pixel-manipulated image (the anchor) and $\Delta z$ is the difference between the target branch's predicted latents and the pixel-manipulated branch's predicted latents, masked so that the new object location is left to the anchor. This delta carries the inpainting and harmonization work, while the anchor guarantees faithful reproduction of the object and the original background. The authors argue that this design sidesteps the accumulated reconstruction error of DDIM inversion and the drift caused by energy guidance that updates predicted noise instead of latents, and their experiments show superior or comparable scores on image quality, object consistency, background consistency, and semantic consistency compared with training-free and training-based baselines at equal or fewer steps.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that noising the pixel-manipulated latents, the target latents, and the source latents with the same random Gaussian at every step keeps the branches aligned well enough that the difference of their predicted latents is a meaningful editing direction rather than a noise artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Object repositioning, resizing, and pasting can all be handled by a single pretrained Stable Diffusion model with no fine-tuning, using 16 steps and 64 UNet calls rather than the 50 steps and 176 calls of the strongest baseline.
  • Because the output is anchored to the pixel-manipulated latents, the moved object is reproduced from the anchor rather than regenerated from noise, which is what preserves shape, color, and texture even at few steps.
  • Leak-proof self-attention is presented as the key to complete inpainting: without it, the ablation shows the model frequently fails to remove the object from its original location.
  • Updating latents rather than predicted noise removes the 'time travel' second inversion round, making the guidance refinement loop cheaper while matching its quality.
  • On the COCOEE and ReS benchmarks, PixelMan at 16 steps outperforms SelfGuidance, DragonDiffusion, DiffEditor, and a trained SDv2-inpainting+AnyDoor pipeline at 50 steps on most consistency metrics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The anchor-plus-delta recipe is a general one: any edit expressible as a deterministic pixel manipulation (copy, paste, scale) could be paired with a diffusion-computed delta, so the same scaffolding may extend to rotations, deformations, or multi-object rearrangements without new training.
  • The shared-noise alignment between branches is the most likely ceiling: if that correspondence degrades for large displacements or highly textured objects, the delta could turn into structured noise, and a learned correspondence between branch latents would be the natural repair.
  • The leak-proof self-attention mechanism is a self-contained fix for a known failure mode of diffusion inpainting and could be reused in other inpainting pipelines that suffer from similar-object contamination.
  • Because the method is inversion-free, it is a plausible drop-in companion to few-step distilled schedulers, which the paper does not test; pushing the 16-step budget toward 4–8 steps is a direct and cheap experiment.
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 proposes PixelMan, a training-free and inversion-free method for consistent object editing (repositioning, resizing, and pasting) based on a single pretrained text-to-image diffusion model. The method creates a pixel-manipulated image by copying the source object to the target location in pixel space, uses this image's VAE latents as a fixed anchor, and obtains a 'delta edit direction' as the difference between the predicted target latents and the predicted pixel-manipulated latents under shared noise (Eqs. (2)-(6)). Additional components include leak-proof self-attention to suppress information leakage during inpainting, a feature-preserving source branch that injects K/V features into the target branch, and inference-time latents optimization using energy guidance. Evaluations on COCOEE and ReS claim that PixelMan at 16 inference steps outperforms several training-free and training-based baselines (typically run at 50 steps) on consistency and image-quality metrics, with lower latency and fewer NFEs.

Significance. If the results are validated, PixelMan is a practically relevant contribution: it sidesteps DDIM inversion and the expensive 'time travel' of energy-guidance methods, enabling consistent object editing with a standard SDv1.5 UNet in as few as 16 steps. The ablation study (Table 2) is informative and the visual comparisons are compelling. The paper also ships a clear algorithmic specification (Algorithm 1) and a detailed appendix with additional comparisons and ablations. The main risks are that the central delta mechanism is not directly validated and that some evaluation choices could inflate the reported advantage; these are addressable with additional experiments rather than being fatal flaws.

major comments (4)
  1. [Obtaining delta edit direction (Eqs. (2)-(6))] The paper asserts that Δz = zhat_tgt_0 − zhat_man_0 is a meaningful editing direction for harmonization and inpainting, but this assumption is never validated. Because the output is anchored to zman_0 and Δz is masked out in the target region for all but the last two steps, the reported object and background consistency metrics are largely inherited from the pixel-copied anchor. An ablation comparing PixelMan against an anchor-only baseline (zout_0 = zman_0 at every step) is missing. Furthermore, the ReS dataset provides paired ground-truth edited images; the paper could directly measure how well zman_0 + Δz approximates the ground-truth target latents/image. Without such evidence, the claim that the delta mechanism enables cohesive inpainting and harmonization at 16 steps is not substantiated.
  2. [Implementation Details (Appendix)] Several hyperparameters are selected on the evaluation sets rather than on held-out data: the msim threshold (0.1, 'selected by comparing different values from 0.1 to 0.5'), the mask cutoff T−2 ('selected by testing out values from 1 to 5'), and the Gaussian blur kernel size 9 ('selected from testing out values of 5 to 11'). This selection-on-test-set procedure can inflate performance and undermines the generalizability of the reported rankings. The authors should fix hyperparameters using a validation split, or at minimum provide a sensitivity analysis showing that the reported conclusions are stable across a plausible range of these values.
  3. [Tables 3, 4, 5, 6] The quantitative comparisons report only point estimates, with no error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests. Many metric differences are small (e.g., in Table 3 at 16 steps, CLIP-T2T is 0.946 for PixelMan vs 0.937 for DiffEditor; in Table 4 at 16 steps, MUSIQ is 74.66 for PixelMan vs 75.21 for DragonDiffusion, where PixelMan is actually lower). The claim of 'outperforms in 8 out of 9' or '9 out of 9' metrics is not statistically supported without per-image variance and paired significance tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank). The authors should report the distribution of per-image scores and perform significance testing for each metric.
  4. [Object consistency metrics (Experiments)] The object consistency metrics (LPIPS and PSNR) compare the edited object region against the original source object. Since PixelMan copies the source object to the target location in pixel space and anchors the output latents to that copy, this metric is almost trivially optimized by the pixel copy, up to VAE encode/decode losses. The paper should explicitly acknowledge this inherited advantage and add metrics or a user study that specifically assess harmonization quality (e.g., local realism, shadow/lighting consistency) to demonstrate that the delta contributes beyond the anchor. This is particularly important because the delta is the component claimed to achieve harmonization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3) and surrounding text] The text states that 'we first follow the FDP equation to obtain zman_t by adding random Gaussian noise ϵ to zsrc_0', but the equation and the surrounding discussion refer to zman_0; this is a typo that should be corrected to zman_0.
  2. [Leak-Proof Self-Attention] The sentence defining the inpaint mask contains a typo: 'mipt equals the mask from(mold − mnew)' should read 'mipt = mold − mnew', and 'areamipt' should be 'area mipt'.
  3. [Table 4 header] Table 4 is titled 'Quantitative results on the ReS (Yang et al. 2022) dataset', but the ReS dataset is from Wang et al. (2024) and the appendix text cites it correctly elsewhere; the citation in the table header should be corrected.
  4. [Comparison to InfEdit (Appendix)] The appendix refers to 'InfEdit (Xu et al. 2024)' and earlier to 'DDCM (Xu et al. 2024)', but the reference list contains only one Xu et al. (2024) entry, which describes DDCM (inversion-free prompt-guided editing). Please clarify the identity of InfEdit and provide the correct citation, since the two are presented as distinct methods.
  5. [Algorithm 1] In the loop over t, the algorithm uses zout_0 without specifying that it is the estimate from the previous iteration; adding a superscript (e.g., zout_0^{(t+1)}) or a comment would make the dependency clear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PixelMan's delta-editing mechanism is benchmarked externally; the pixel-copy anchor is transparent, and self-references are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

PixelMan's claimed derivation is not circular. Eq. (1) and Eq. (6) define the output as an anchor plus a branch-difference delta; this is an algorithmic construction, not a conclusion that is fed back into its own premise. The delta is obtained from two separate UNet predictions on different latents (pixel-manipulated versus target) that share only the noise draw, so its usefulness for harmonization and inpainting is an empirical claim, validated against external baselines (DragonDiffusion, DiffEditor, SelfGuidance, SDv2+AnyDoor, PAIR Diffusion, InfEdit) on COCOEE and ReS. The paper's only self-references are the project page and the arXiv extended-version link, neither of which supports any load-bearing step. One caveat, but not circularity, is that object-consistency metrics over the moved object are largely guaranteed by construction: Eq. (6) masks the delta to zero in the target region, and the paper explicitly credits the pixel-copy anchor, not the delta mechanism, for that metric. Because the paper is transparent about this and the central delta/leak-proof-SA/optimization content is independently benchmarked and ablated, there is no circular derivation chain. The shared-noise correspondence in Algorithm 1 is an unproven correctness assumption, not a circularity.

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

The central claim rests on empirical design choices rather than a mathematical derivation. The free parameters are small in number but several were tuned on the evaluation data, and the key geometric assumptions about latent-space correspondence and self-attention leakage are stated as intuitive premises, not proven.

free parameters (4)
  • msim threshold = 0.1
    Chosen by comparing values from 0.1 to 0.5 in the Implementation Details section; converts averaged self-attention rows into a binary similar-object mask used by leak-proof SA.
  • mask scheduling cutoff = T-2
    Masked blending is applied for t < T-2 and removed in the last two steps; the value 2 was selected by testing values 1 to 5, as described in Implementation Details.
  • Gaussian blur kernel size for mask = 9
    Applied to mask M to soften blending; kernel size 9 was selected by testing values 5 to 11 in Implementation Details.
  • GSN latents optimization schedule = every step for t < 0.2T, every two steps for 0.2T to 0.6T, with r=3 repeats in a sub-range
    The repetition schedule in Algorithm 1 line 6 follows DragonDiffusion and affects harmonization quality; it is a hand-set degree of freedom rather than a derived quantity.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The FDP and RGP equations for the latent diffusion model (Eqs. 8 to 10 in the Appendix) are valid.
    The method's branch noising and delta computation rely on the standard analytic noising schedule and on RGP prediction of z0; these are background results assumed without proof.
  • domain assumption Same random noise epsilon across the three branches keeps the latents in correspondence so the delta in Eq. (2) is a meaningful edit direction.
    Algorithm 1 lines 3 to 5 draw one epsilon per timestep and noise zsrc_0, zman_0, and zout_0 with it; the entire delta-editing idea depends on this correspondence, which is not proven.
  • domain assumption The pixel-manipulated latents E(Iman) are a valid anchor on the natural image manifold.
    Eqs. (1) to (6) set the output estimate to the pixel-manipulated latents plus a delta; the paper assumes the UNet gives reliable predictions on the latents of a crude copy-paste image, with no theoretical guarantee.
  • domain assumption Information leakage through self-attention is the dominant cause of incomplete inpainting.
    The Leak-Proof Self-Attention section resets QK^T entries for mold, mnew, and msim to minus infinity; the paper motivates this by citing attention leakage, but provides no ablation isolating other leakage pathways.
  • domain assumption DragonDiffusion's energy function and coefficients transfer to PixelMan's three-branched setup.
    The Editing Guidance section reuses the four-component energy from Mou et al. 2024b with the same coefficients; validity depends on the transferability of that guidance to this new formulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PixelMan: Consistent Object Editing with Diffusion Models via Pixel Manipulation and Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ORU3ZYN2

@misc{pith2026241214283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PixelMan: Consistent Object Editing with Diffusion Models via Pixel Manipulation and Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ORU3ZYN2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14283}
}
read the original abstract

Recent research explores the potential of Diffusion Models (DMs) for consistent object editing, which aims to modify object position, size, and composition, etc., while preserving the consistency of objects and background without changing their texture and attributes. Current inference-time methods often rely on DDIM inversion, which inherently compromises efficiency and the achievable consistency of edited images. Recent methods also utilize energy guidance which iteratively updates the predicted noise and can drive the latents away from the original image, resulting in distortions. In this paper, we propose PixelMan, an inversion-free and training-free method for achieving consistent object editing via Pixel Manipulation and generation, where we directly create a duplicate copy of the source object at target location in the pixel space, and introduce an efficient sampling approach to iteratively harmonize the manipulated object into the target location and inpaint its original location, while ensuring image consistency by anchoring the edited image to be generated to the pixel-manipulated image as well as by introducing various consistency-preserving optimization techniques during inference. Experimental evaluations based on benchmark datasets as well as extensive visual comparisons show that in as few as 16 inference steps, PixelMan outperforms a range of state-of-the-art training-based and training-free methods (usually requiring 50 steps) on multiple consistent object editing tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14283 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of PixelMan. An efficient inversion-free sampling approach for consistent image editing, which copies the object to target location in pixel-space, and ensure image consistency by anchoring to the latents of pixel-manipulated image. We design a leak-proof self-attention mechanism to achieve complete and cohesive inpainting by mitigating information leakage. pixel-manipulated branch consistent with the ancho… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visual comparisons on COCOEE dataset. PixelMan achieves consistent object editing for object repositioning with lower latency and fewer inference steps, while better preserving image consistency and achieving cohesive inpainting. tasks (see Appendix). For the object repositioning task, we perform extensive quantitative evaluation and visual com￾parisons, both against the existing methods, as well as abla￾tion studie… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radar charts that shows normalized evaluation metric values of different methods. TOPIQ, MUSIQ, LIQE belong to IQA; LPIPS (neg) and PSNR belong to Object Consistency; LPIPS (neg) and PSNR belong to Background Consistency; and CLIP-T2T and CLIP-I2I belong to Semantic Consistency. Detailed results and additional comparisons in Appendix. COCOEE ReS #Steps NFEs avg(lat.) avg(lat.) SD2+AnyDoor 50 100 15 16 SelfGuidance 5… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation qualitative examples on the COCOEE dataset at 16 steps. • K,V saving & injection: We ablate the effect of the K, V saving and injection, where we save the K, V from the UNet call in the feature-preserving source branch, and inject them in the target branch UNe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation on K, V saving and injection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Additional qualitative comparison on the COCOEE dataset at both 16 and 50 steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Additional qualitative comparison on the COCOEE dataset at both 16 and 50 steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Additional qualitative comparison on the COCOEE dataset at both 16 and 50 steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Additional qualitative comparison on the ReS dataset at both 16 and 50 steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Additional qualitative comparison on the ReS dataset at both 16 and 50 steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Additional qualitative comparison on the COCOEE dataset at 8 steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Additional qualitative comparison on the ReS dataset at 8 steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative examples on other consistent object editing tasks including object resizing, and object pasting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Additional qualitative comparisons to PAIR Diffusion (Goel et al. 2023) and InfEdit (Xu et al. 2024) on the COCOEE dataset at 50, 16 and 8 steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Additional qualitative comparisons to PAIR Diffusion (Goel et al. 2023) and InfEdit (Xu et al. 2024) on the ReS dataset at 50, 16 and 8 steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adobe. 2023. AI Photo Editor: Edit Images with AI in Photoshop - Adobe . https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/ai.html. Accessed: 2024-05-22

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    AI, S. 2022 a . SDv1.5 . https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5. Accessed: 2024-05-14

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    AI, S. 2022 b . SDv2-inpainting . https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-2-inpainting. Accessed: 2024-05-14

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    AI, S. 2023. SDXL-Turbo . https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/sdxl-turbo. Accessed: 2024-05-14

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Alaluf, Y.; Garibi, D.; Patashnik, O.; Averbuch-Elor, H.; and Cohen-Or, D. 2023. Cross-image attention for zero-shot appearance transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03335

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Brooks, T.; Holynski, A.; and Efros, A. A. 2023. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 18392--18402

    2023

  7. [7]

    Cao, M.; Wang, X.; Qi, Z.; Shan, Y.; Qie, X.; and Zheng, Y. 2023. Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 22560--22570

    2023

  8. [8]

    T.; Rubinstein, M.; et al

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

    arXiv 2023

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Chefer, H.; Alaluf, Y.; Vinker, Y.; Wolf, L.; and Cohen-Or, D. 2023. Attend-and-Excite: Attention-Based Semantic Guidance for Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. arXiv:2301.13826

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chen, C.; Mo, J.; Hou, J.; Wu, H.; Liao, L.; Sun, W.; Yan, Q.; and Lin, W. 2024 a . Topiq: A top-down approach from semantics to distortions for image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

    2024

  3. [11]

    Chen, X.; Huang, L.; Liu, Y.; Shen, Y.; Zhao, D.; and Zhao, H. 2024 b . Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level image customization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6593--6602

    2024

  4. [12]

    Dahary, O.; Patashnik, O.; Aberman, K.; and Cohen-Or, D. 2024. Be Yourself: Bounded Attention for Multi-Subject Text-to-Image Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16990

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

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

    2021

  6. [14]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Duan, X.; Cui, S.; Kang, G.; Zhang, B.; Fei, Z.; Fan, M.; and Huang, J. 2024. Tuning-free inversion-enhanced control for consistent image editing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 1644--1652

    2024

  8. [16]

    Endo, Y. 2022. User-Controllable Latent Transformer for StyleGAN Image Layout Editing. Computer Graphics Forum, 41(7): 395--406

    2022

  9. [17]

    Epstein, D.; Jabri, A.; Poole, B.; Efros, A.; and Holynski, A. 2023. Diffusion self-guidance for controllable image generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 16222--16239

    2023

  10. [18]

    Gafni, O.; Polyak, A.; Ashual, O.; Sheynin, S.; Parikh, D.; and Taigman, Y. 2022. Make-a-scene: Scene-based text-to-image generation with human priors. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 89--106. Springer

    2022

  11. [19]

    Garibi, D.; Patashnik, O.; Voynov, A.; Averbuch-Elor, H.; and Cohen-Or, D. 2024. ReNoise: Real Image Inversion Through Iterative Noising. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14602

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Goel, V.; Peruzzo, E.; Jiang, Y.; Xu, D.; Sebe, N.; Darrell, T.; Wang, Z.; and Shi, H. 2023. PAIR-Diffusion: Object-Level Image Editing with Structure-and-Appearance Paired Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17546

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Google. 2023. Google Photos MagicEditor . https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-magic-editor-pixel-io-2023/. Accessed: 2024-05-22

    2023

  14. [22]

    Hertz, A.; Mokady, R.; Tenenbaum, J.; Aberman, K.; Pritch, Y.; and Cohen-Or, D. 2022. Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hertz, A.; Voynov, A.; Fruchter, S.; and Cohen-Or, D. 2023. Style aligned image generation via shared attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02133

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 6840--6851

    2020

  17. [25]

    Jeong, J.; Kim, J.; Choi, Y.; Lee, G.; and Uh, Y. 2024. Visual Style Prompting with Swapping Self-Attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12974

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kang, M.; Zhu, J.-Y.; Zhang, R.; Park, J.; Shechtman, E.; Paris, S.; and Park, T. 2023. Scaling up gans for text-to-image synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 10124--10134

    2023

  19. [27]

    Kawar, B.; Zada, S.; Lang, O.; Tov, O.; Chang, H.; Dekel, T.; Mosseri, I.; and Irani, M. 2023. Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6007--6017

    2023

  20. [28]

    Ke, J.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Milanfar, P.; and Yang, F. 2021. Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 5148--5157

    2021

  21. [29]

    C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al

    Kirillov, A.; Mintun, E.; Ravi, N.; Mao, H.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; Xiao, T.; Whitehead, S.; Berg, A. C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al. 2023. Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 4015--4026

    2023

  22. [30]

    Li, J.; Li, D.; Xiong, C.; and Hoi, S. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International conference on machine learning, 12888--12900. PMLR

    2022

  23. [31]

    Lin, T.-Y.; Maire, M.; Belongie, S.; Hays, J.; Perona, P.; Ramanan, D.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Zitnick, C. L. 2014. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 1...

    2014

  24. [32]

    Liu, L.; Ren, Y.; Lin, Z.; and Zhao, Z. 2022. Pseudo numerical methods for diffusion models on manifolds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.09778

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Luo, S.; Tan, Y.; Huang, L.; Li, J.; and Zhao, H. 2023. Latent consistency models: Synthesizing high-resolution images with few-step inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04378

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Mou, C.; Wang, X.; Song, J.; Shan, Y.; and Zhang, J. 2024 a . DiffEditor: Boosting Accuracy and Flexibility on Diffusion-based Image Editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02583

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mou, C.; Wang, X.; Song, J.; Shan, Y.; and Zhang, J. 2024 b . DragonDiffusion: Enabling Drag-style Manipulation on Diffusion Models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  28. [36]

    Pan, X.; Tewari, A.; Leimk \"u hler, T.; Liu, L.; Meka, A.; and Theobalt, C. 2023. Drag your gan: Interactive point-based manipulation on the generative image manifold. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, 1--11

    2023

  29. [37]

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

    2023

  30. [38]

    Patashnik, O.; Garibi, D.; Azuri, I.; Averbuch-Elor, H.; and Cohen-Or, D. 2023. Localizing object-level shape variations with text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 23051--23061

    2023

  31. [39]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al

    Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, 8748--8763. PMLR

    2021

  32. [40]

    Ramesh, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Nichol, A.; Chu, C.; and Chen, M. 2022. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 1(2): 3

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Rezende, D.; and Mohamed, S. 2015. Variational inference with normalizing flows. In International conference on machine learning, 1530--1538. PMLR

    2015

  34. [42]

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

    2022

  35. [43]

    Saharia, C.; Chan, W.; Chang, H.; Lee, C.; Ho, J.; Salimans, T.; Fleet, D.; and Norouzi, M. 2022 a . Palette: Image-to-image diffusion models. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 conference proceedings, 1--10

    2022

  36. [44]

    L.; Ghasemipour, K.; Gontijo Lopes, R.; Karagol Ayan, B.; Salimans, T.; et al

    Saharia, C.; Chan, W.; Saxena, S.; Li, L.; Whang, J.; Denton, E. L.; Ghasemipour, K.; Gontijo Lopes, R.; Karagol Ayan, B.; Salimans, T.; et al. 2022 b . Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sy...

    2022

  37. [45]

    Y.; and Bai, S

    Shi, Y.; Xue, C.; Pan, J.; Zhang, W.; Tan, V. Y.; and Bai, S. 2023. Dragdiffusion: Harnessing diffusion models for interactive point-based image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14435

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

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

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    P.; Kumar, A.; Ermon, S.; and Poole, B

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

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Tumanyan, N.; Geyer, M.; Bagon, S.; and Dekel, T. 2023. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1921--1930

    2023

  41. [49]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  42. [50]

    Wang, Y.; Cao, C.; Dong, Q.; Li, Y.; and Fu, Y. 2024. Repositioning the Subject within Image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16861

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Winter, D.; Cohen, M.; Fruchter, S.; Pritch, Y.; Rav-Acha, A.; and Hoshen, Y. 2024. ObjectDrop: Bootstrapping Counterfactuals for Photorealistic Object Removal and Insertion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18818

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Xu, S.; Huang, Y.; Pan, J.; Ma, Z.; and Chai, J. 2024. Inversion-Free Image Editing with Natural Language. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Yang, B.; Gu, S.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, T.; Chen, X.; Sun, X.; Chen, D.; and Wen, F. 2022. Paint by Example: Exemplar-based Image Editing with Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13227

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Y.; Luong, T.; Baid, G.; Wang, Z.; Vasudevan, V.; Ku, A.; Yang, Y.; Ayan, B

    Yu, J.; Xu, Y.; Koh, J. Y.; Luong, T.; Baid, G.; Wang, Z.; Vasudevan, V.; Ku, A.; Yang, Y.; Ayan, B. K.; et al. 2022. Scaling autoregressive models for content-rich text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10789

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

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

    2023

  48. [56]

    A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O

    Zhang, R.; Isola, P.; Efros, A. A.; Shechtman, E.; and Wang, O. 2018. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 586--595

    2018

  49. [57]

    Zhang, W.; Zhai, G.; Wei, Y.; Yang, X.; and Ma, K. 2023. Blind Image Quality Assessment via Vision-Language Correspondence: A Multitask Learning Perspective. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14071--14081

    2023

  50. [58]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  51. [59]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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