Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 32 references

DRDM: A Disentangled Representations Diffusion Model for Synthesizing Realistic Person Images

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 A diffusion model that disentangles body parts achieves state-of-the-art person image synthesis on DeepFashion, with FID 7.7462, SSIM 0.7409, and LPIPS 0.1652.

desk verdict Plausible architecture, and the ablation suggests the parsing-guided decoupling helps, but the SOTA claim is not supported by the reported margins alone. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18797 v1 pith:6WPPFWBO submitted 2024-12-25 cs.CV

Enbo Huang , Yuan Zhang , Faliang Huang , Guangyu Zhang , Yang Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords personimagesynthesisdiffusionmodeldisentangledrepresentationhumanparsingposetransfervirtualtry-onclassifier-freeguidance
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

Controllable person image synthesis—re-rendering a photo in a new pose or with different clothing—typically degrades into missing detail, distorted limbs, and wrong garment style. This paper proposes DRDM, a diffusion model that first separates the source figure's texture into body-part subspaces (head, clothes, pants, hands) using a semantic parsing map, then injects those disentangled features into the noise predictor at multiple scales under pose guidance. The paper claims this decomposition lets the network preserve each region's texture while recombining it for the target pose, fixing exactly the artifacts earlier methods suffer. On the DeepFashion benchmark, DRDM reports the best FID of 7.7462, SSIM of 0.7409, and LPIPS of 0.1652, and a user study prefers it over the previous best diffusion baseline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the body-part subspace decoupling block (BSDB). It uses a human parsing map $M_s$ to cut the source image $I_s$ into head, clothes, pants, and hand regions, encodes each region with a dedicated texture encoder that includes a self-attention layer to reject stray pixels, and stacks the outputs into $F_s$. Cross-attention at resolutions $32\times32$, $16\times16$, and $8\times8$ lets the target pose $P_t$ pull the required texture from $F_s$ and inject it into the noise prediction block $H_N$. The second mechanism is PMDCF-guidance, which writes the predicted noise as $\epsilon_{cond} = \epsilon_{uncond} + w_s \epsilon_{style} + w_p \epsilon_{pose}$, so style and pose are amplified independently.

What would settle it

Take the pretrained DRDM and run it on a pose-transfer test set with heavy occlusion or rare poses, comparing outputs when parsing maps are computed by the original Rebalanced model versus a deliberately corrupted version (e.g., switching the pants and clothes labels). If FID, SSIM, or user preference do not degrade meaningfully under corrupted parsing, the disentanglement claim is not load-bearing; if the gains over whole-image diffusion baselines vanish on the occlusion subset, the claimed advantage is conditional on parsing accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that disentangling the source person's appearance by semantic body part—rather than encoding the whole figure—is what makes high-fidelity pose transfer possible in a diffusion framework. DRDM derives a multi-scale texture feature set $F_s$ from four separate body-part encoders, each equipped with self-attention to ignore wrong regions caused by imprecise parsing, and uses cross-attention conditioned on the target pose to feed these features into the noise prediction block. A parsing-map-based disentangled classifier-free guidance (PMDCF) sampling separately amplifies style and pose conditional signals. The paper reports that this configuration outperforms all compared methods on DeepFashion in FID, SSIM, and LPIPS, and wins human preference by a wide margin.

Load-bearing premise

The approach leans on the pre-trained human parsing map labeling each body part correctly; mislabeled parts, especially under occlusion or unusual poses, would feed mixed or wrong textures into the disentangled encoders and erase the claimed advantage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold, pose transfer and virtual try-on systems can preserve garment logos, prints, and limb details that whole-image encoders blur.
  • Because body parts are decoupled, users could edit appearance by swapping only the head, clothes, pants, or hand texture from another photo, enabling compositional editing.
  • Amplifying style and pose separately in sampling gives a single knob for faithfulness to the source texture versus faithfulness to the target pose.
  • The state-of-the-art DeepFashion numbers provide a new competitive baseline for future pose-guided person synthesis work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's dependence on parsing quality suggests an immediate stress test: running the same pipeline with intentionally corrupted parsing maps should show monotone degradation; if small parse errors barely hurt, the self-attention mechanism is doing the heavy lifting.
  • The same disentanglement idea could generalize to other structured image-to-image tasks where one object has stable semantic parts, such as faces with eyes/mouth or cars with wheels/body, not just human figures.
  • Because the model stores texture per body part, it may extend naturally to person video synthesis by reusing the texture set across frames while changing only the pose encoder input.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DRDM, a diffusion-based framework for pose-guided person image synthesis. The architecture comprises a pose encoder, a body-part subspace decoupling block (BSDB) that uses human parsing maps to separate texture features for the head, clothes, pants, and hands, per-part texture encoders with self-attention, and cross-attention injection of the disentangled features into the noise prediction block. At inference, the paper introduces a parsing-map-based disentangled classifier-free guidance (PMDCF-guidance) that separately amplifies style and pose conditional signals. Experiments on the DeepFashion dataset report FID 7.7462, SSIM 0.7409, and LPIPS 0.1652, which are compared against PIDM and several GAN-based baselines, along with a user study. Ablations in Table III show large drops when removing BSDB or PMDCF-guidance, and a smaller drop when removing self-attention. The central claim is state-of-the-art performance on DeepFashion.

Significance. The disentangled representation idea, using parsing maps to separate body-part textures and injecting them into a diffusion denoiser, is a reasonable and potentially useful direction for controllable person image synthesis. The paper provides a clear architecture description, a dedicated ablation study, and a user study, which are positive features. However, the empirical support for the state-of-the-art claim is weak: all quantitative results come from a single dataset, a single training run, and are reported without error bars or significance tests. The performance margins over PIDM in Table I are tiny (FID 0.115, SSIM 0.0097, LPIPS 0.0026) and are likely within run-to-run or evaluation noise for diffusion models. Moreover, the paper cites recent diffusion baselines such as CFLD, HumanSD, and OOTD in the introduction but does not include them in the quantitative comparison, so the claimed state-of-the-art status is not properly established. If the authors can provide statistically robust comparisons and include missing baselines, the contribution could be of interest to the person-synthesis community; as written, the evidence is not yet convincing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table I and Section III-A] The central state-of-the-art claim is not statistically supported. The reported FID improvement over PIDM is 0.115 (7.7462 vs. 7.8615), which is about 1.5% relative and well within the variation typically observed across training seeds and sampling stochasticity for diffusion models. No standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are provided for any metric in Table I, Table II, or Table III. The authors should report results over multiple seeds (at least three) or provide bootstrap confidence intervals, and perform a significance test where appropriate, before claiming superiority over PIDM.
  2. [Table I and References [2], [3], [17]] The paper cites CFLD [2], HumanSD [3], and OOTD [17] as recent diffusion-based methods for person image synthesis, yet none of these appears in the quantitative comparison of Table I. Since these are contemporary diffusion baselines, omitting them makes the claim of achieving state-of-the-art results on DeepFashion unsupported. The authors should add comparisons with these methods, or explicitly justify their exclusion, in order to substantiate the paper's central claim.
  3. [Table II and Section III-B] The user study results, particularly the Jab metric (45.7% for DRDM vs. 20.4% for PIDM), are reported without any confidence interval or statistical significance test. With 90 volunteers and 90 image pairs, it is important to verify that the observed preference is not due to chance, for example using a binomial test or bootstrap. As written, the user-study evidence for perceptual superiority is suggestive but not conclusive.
  4. [Table III] The ablation study shows that removing self-attention changes FID only from 7.7462 to 7.9172 (a 0.171 difference), which is smaller than the claimed advantage over PIDM in Table I. Without error bars, the contribution of the self-attention component to the final performance is not established. The same issue affects the interpretation of the BSDB and PMDCF-guidance ablations, since all values are single-run point estimates. The authors should provide variability estimates for the ablation results as well.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The term 'paring map' appears in the abstract and introduction; it should be 'parsing map'.
  2. [Table I] The table formatting has repeated text 'DRDM (Ours)DRDM (Ours)DRDM (Ours)' in the last row; this should be cleaned up.
  3. [Figure 2] The caption uses 'Body-parts Subspaces Decoupling Block' but the acronym BSDB is not expanded in the caption; please define it for clarity.
  4. [Section II-D, Eq. (1)-(2)] The notation for y_t, epsilon, and the condition sets is not fully introduced; a reader unfamiliar with classifier-free guidance may need a brief definition of each symbol in Eq. (1)-(2).
  5. [Section III-A] The sentence 'This notion means that our method can preserve complete and clear textural structures even under perfect alignment of the target pose' is unclear; consider rephrasing.
  6. [Section III-A] The evaluation protocol is underspecified: the number of test images, the FID implementation details, and whether the same preprocessing was used for all methods are not reported. This makes reproduction difficult.
  7. [General] The dataset name is inconsistently capitalized as 'DeepFashion' and 'Deepfashion'; please standardize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DRDM is an empirical architecture paper evaluated against external benchmarks and held-out test data.

full rationale

The paper's method is an architecture proposal, not a formal derivation. There is no step in which a claimed prediction is defined in terms of the target quantity, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The parsing map from reference [31], a prior paper co-authored by the first author, is used as an input preprocessing tool rather than as the output being predicted; citing it for the parser is normal external support and does not make the generation result circular. The guidance scales ws=3.0 and wp=2.5 are manually chosen sampling hyperparameters, not fitted to the test-set metrics, so the quantitative comparison is not forced by construction. The small margins over PIDM in Table I raise reproducibility concerns, but those are correctness and robustness issues, not circularity. The evaluation uses the external DeepFashion benchmark and pretrained baseline models, so the central claims are self-contained against external evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities, forces, or conserved quantities. The only hand-picked parameters are the guidance scales and unconditional dropout rate. The main unstated premises are the accuracy of the off-the-shelf parsing and pose models, which are load-bearing for the disentanglement mechanism.

free parameters (3)
  • ws (style guidance scale) = 3.0
    Manually chosen inference hyperparameter; no sensitivity analysis or grid search reported.
  • wp (pose guidance scale) = 2.5
    Manually chosen inference hyperparameter; no sensitivity analysis or grid search reported.
  • dropout probability for unconditional training = 0.1 (10%)
    Chosen to train the unconditional model for classifier-free guidance; no ablation over this value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The pre-trained Rebalanced Parsing model provides accurate semantic segmentation maps for the source images.
    The BSDB relies on parsing maps to isolate body parts; if parsing is inaccurate, the disentangled features are corrupted. No error analysis of the parsing model is provided.
  • domain assumption The pre-trained pose estimator (OpenPose, [29]) provides correct 18-channel pose maps.
    The pose encoder uses the estimated pose map as the condition for generation; errors in pose estimation directly affect the output alignment.
  • domain assumption The DeepFashion dataset and its standard train/test split are an appropriate benchmark for evaluating pose transfer.
    The paper evaluates on DeepFashion only, and assumes this dataset's distribution represents the task. No cross-dataset evaluation is performed.
  • standard math Standard DDPM noise prediction training and classifier-free guidance are valid.
    The method builds on DDPM [16] and classifier-free guidance [30], which are accepted background tools.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DRDM: A Disentangled Representations Diffusion Model for Synthesizing Realistic Person Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WPPFWBO

@misc{pith2026241218797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DRDM: A Disentangled Representations Diffusion Model for Synthesizing Realistic Person Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WPPFWBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18797}
}
read the original abstract

Person image synthesis with controllable body poses and appearances is an essential task owing to the practical needs in the context of virtual try-on, image editing and video production. However, existing methods face significant challenges with details missing, limbs distortion and the garment style deviation. To address these issues, we propose a Disentangled Representations Diffusion Model (DRDM) to generate photo-realistic images from source portraits in specific desired poses and appearances. First, a pose encoder is responsible for encoding pose features into a high-dimensional space to guide the generation of person images. Second, a body-part subspace decoupling block (BSDB) disentangles features from the different body parts of a source figure and feeds them to the various layers of the noise prediction block, thereby supplying the network with rich disentangled features for generating a realistic target image. Moreover, during inference, we develop a parsing map-based disentangled classifier-free guided sampling method, which amplifies the conditional signals of texture and pose. Extensive experimental results on the Deepfashion dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in achieving pose transfer and appearance control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18797 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of challenging instances and our results. Details missing, limbs distortion and garment style deviation are three types of degeneration key issues in person image composition task. Our model can generate more accurate human limbs, clothing styles and more vivid details compared with recent state-of-the-art methods ( e.g., PIDM [1]) under variance viewpoint changed and occluded conditions. To address the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our model. (a) DRDM consists of the BSDB, pose encoder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparisons with several state-of-the-art models on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Coarse-to-fine latent diffusion for pose-guided person image synthesis,

    Yanzuo Lu, Manlin Zhang, Andy J Ma, Xiaohua Xie, and Jianhuang Lai, “Coarse-to-fine latent diffusion for pose-guided person image synthesis,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 6420–6429

    work page 2024

  2. [3]

    Humansd: A native skeleton-guided diffusion model for human image generation,

    Xuan Ju, Ailing Zeng, Chenchen Zhao, Jianan Wang, Lei Zhang, and Qiang Xu, “Humansd: A native skeleton-guided diffusion model for human image generation,” in IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2023, pp. 15988–15998

    work page 2023

  3. [17]

    Improving diffusion models for virtual try-on,

    Yisol Choi, Sangkyung Kwak, Kyungmin Lee, Hyungwon Choi, and Jinwoo Shin, “Improving diffusion models for virtual try-on,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05139, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [1]

    Person image synthesis via denoising diffusion model,

    Ankan Kumar Bhunia, Salman Khan, Hisham Cholakkal, Rao Muham- mad Anwer, Jorma Laaksonen, Mubarak Shah, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan, “Person image synthesis via denoising diffusion model,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. 5968–5976

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Must-gan: Multi- level statistics transfer for self-driven person image generation,

    Tianxiang Ma, Bo Peng, Wei Wang, and Jing Dong, “Must-gan: Multi- level statistics transfer for self-driven person image generation,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021, pp. 13622–13631

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Controllable person image synthesis with attribute-decomposed gan,

    Yifang Men, Yiming Mao, Yuning Jiang, Wei-Ying Ma, and Zhouhui Lian, “Controllable person image synthesis with attribute-decomposed gan,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 5084–5093

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Deep image spatial transformation for person image generation,

    Yurui Ren, Xiaoming Yu, Junming Chen, Thomas H Li, and Ge Li, “Deep image spatial transformation for person image generation,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020, pp. 7690–7699

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Cross attention based style distribution for controllable person image synthesis,

    Xinyue Zhou, Mingyu Yin, Xinyuan Chen, Li Sun, Changxin Gao, and Qingli Li, “Cross attention based style distribution for controllable person image synthesis,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). Springer, 2022, pp. 161–178

    work page 2022

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Neural texture extraction and distribution for controllable person image synthe- sis,

    Yurui Ren, Xiaoqing Fan, Ge Li, Shan Liu, and Thomas H Li, “Neural texture extraction and distribution for controllable person image synthe- sis,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 13535–13544

    2022

  2. [9]

    Analyzing and improving the image quality of stylegan,

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila, “Analyzing and improving the image quality of stylegan,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 8110–8119

    2020

  3. [10]

    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 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2019, pp. 4401– 4410

    2019

  4. [11]

    High-resolution image synthesis and semantic manipulation with conditional gans,

    Ting-Chun Wang, Ming-Yu Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, Andrew Tao, Jan Kautz, and Bryan Catanzaro, “High-resolution image synthesis and semantic manipulation with conditional gans,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2018, pp. 8798–8807

    2018

  5. [12]

    Progres- sive growing of GANs for improved quality, stability, and variation,

    Tero Karras, Timo Aila, Samuli Laine, and Jaakko Lehtinen, “Progres- sive growing of GANs for improved quality, stability, and variation,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2018

    2018

  6. [13]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks,

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros, “Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 2223–2232

    2017

  7. [14]

    Image- to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,

    Phillip Isola, Jun-Yan Zhu, Tinghui Zhou, and Alexei A Efros, “Image- to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 1125–1134

    2017

  8. [15]

    Ccgan: Continuous conditional generative adversarial networks for image generation,

    Xin Ding, Yongwei Wang, Zuheng Xu, William J Welch, and Z Jane Wang, “Ccgan: Continuous conditional generative adversarial networks for image generation,” in International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations (ICLR), 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020, vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851

    2020

  10. [18]

    Hierarchically learned view-invariant representations for cross-view action recognition,

    Yang Liu, Zhaoyang Lu, Jing Li, and Tao Yang, “Hierarchically learned view-invariant representations for cross-view action recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 2416–2430, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Deep image-to-video adaptation and fusion networks for action recognition,

    Yang Liu, Zhaoyang Lu, Jing Li, Tao Yang, and Chao Yao, “Deep image-to-video adaptation and fusion networks for action recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 29, pp. 3168–3182, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Semantics-aware adaptive knowledge distillation for sensor-to-vision action recognition,

    Yang Liu, Keze Wang, Guanbin Li, and Liang Lin, “Semantics-aware adaptive knowledge distillation for sensor-to-vision action recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 30, pp. 5573–5588, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Tcgl: Temporal contrastive graph for self-supervised video representation learning,

    Yang Liu, Keze Wang, Lingbo Liu, Haoyuan Lan, and Liang Lin, “Tcgl: Temporal contrastive graph for self-supervised video representation learning,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 31, pp. 1978– 1993, 2022

    1978

  14. [22]

    An image data augmentation algorithm based on yolov5s-da for pave- ment distress detection,

    Zhengji Li, Yuhong Xie, Xi Xiao, Lanju Tao, Jinyuan Liu, and Ke Wang, “An image data augmentation algorithm based on yolov5s-da for pave- ment distress detection,” in 2022 5th International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence (PRAI) , 2022, pp. 891– 895

    2022

  15. [23]

    Hybrid-order representation learning for electricity theft detection,

    Yuying Zhu, Yang Zhang, Lingbo Liu, Yang Liu, Guanbin Li, Mingzhi Mao, and Liang Lin, “Hybrid-order representation learning for electricity theft detection,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1248–1259, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Cross-modal causal relational reasoning for event-level visual question answering,

    Yang Liu, Guanbin Li, and Liang Lin, “Cross-modal causal relational reasoning for event-level visual question answering,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 11624–11641, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Denselight: efficient control for large-scale traffic signals with dense feedback,

    Junfan Lin, Yuying Zhu, Lingbo Liu, Yang Liu, Guanbin Li, and Liang Lin, “Denselight: efficient control for large-scale traffic signals with dense feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07553 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Skeletonmae: graph-based masked autoencoder for skeleton sequence pre-training,

    Hong Yan, Yang Liu, Yushen Wei, Zhen Li, Guanbin Li, and Liang Lin, “Skeletonmae: graph-based masked autoencoder for skeleton sequence pre-training,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 5606–5618

    2023

  19. [27]

    Visual causal scene refinement for video question answering,

    Yushen Wei, Yang Liu, Hong Yan, Guanbin Li, and Liang Lin, “Visual causal scene refinement for video question answering,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2023, pp. 377–386

    2023

  20. [28]

    Aligning cyber space with physical world: A com- prehensive survey on embodied ai,

    Yang Liu, Weixing Chen, Yongjie Bai, Xiaodan Liang, Guanbin Li, Wen Gao, and Liang Lin, “Aligning cyber space with physical world: A com- prehensive survey on embodied ai,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06886 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,

    Zhe Cao, Tomas Simon, Shih-En Wei, and Yaser Sheikh, “Realtime multi-person 2d pose estimation using part affinity fields,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 7291–7299

    2017

  22. [30]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance,

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

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Learning rebalanced human parsing model from imbalanced datasets,

    Enbo Huang, Zhuo Su, Fan Zhou, and Ruomei Wang, “Learning rebalanced human parsing model from imbalanced datasets,” Image and Vision Computing , 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Pise: Person image synthesis and editing with decoupled gan,

    Jinsong Zhang, Kun Li, Yu-Kun Lai, and Jingyu Yang, “Pise: Person image synthesis and editing with decoupled gan,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2021, pp. 7982– 7990

    2021

Pith tools

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