Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 40 references

Test-time Controllable Image Generation by Explicit Spatial Constraint Enforcement

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spatial constraints can be enforced at test time by decoupling semantics from geometry and explicitly moving latent content.

desk verdict Training-free layout control with a novel latent-translation mechanism, but the multi-instance claim doesn't survive scrutiny and the 'all metrics' boast is contradicted by the paper's own table. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01368 v1 pith:Y3QPJERH submitted 2025-01-02 cs.CV

Z. Zhang , B. Liu , J. Bao , L. Chen , S. Zhu , J. Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords test-timecontrollablegenerationlayout-to-imagetraining-freecontrolcross-attentionmapssemanticconsistencygeometriclatentrelocalizationStableDiffusion
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 tries to show that a frozen text-to-image diffusion model can follow bounding-box or keypoint layouts on natural-language prompts without any fine-tuning. The authors split a spatial condition into a semantic part (what object classes are requested) and a geometric part (where they should go), then enforce each separately during sampling. Semantic consistency is handled by completing the prompt when a layout category is missing from the caption and by matching each category to the word token whose attention map is actually active. Geometric consistency is handled by turning attention maps into region masks, translating the corresponding latent patches onto the target boxes, and refilling the vacated regions with a second diffusion chain. On the Coco-stuff validation set the method reports a 30% relative improvement in layout-consistency average precision over the previous training-free state of the art, at roughly the same inference cost as BoxDiff.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cross-attention map of the frozen diffusion model, treated as a noisy but serviceable localizer of where each word is being painted. On the semantic side, the mechanism is attention-map matching: candidate word tokens are ranked by their word-vector distance to the layout label, filtered by whether their attention map is regionally activated, and the surviving token becomes the handle for later manipulation. On the geometric side, the mechanism is a geometric transform module with three steps: RoI identification (threshold the normalized attention map and take its convex hull as a binary mask), latents relocalization (copy the masked latent patch to the target box center), and latents refill (run a second denoising chain, blend it with the original latent at the ROIs from step T/2 onward, and overwrite the vacated region). The paper fixes two DDIM steps for these operations, attention matching at t=40 and geometric relocation at t=25, so the manipulation is explicit rather than a learned or loss-driven push.

What would settle it

Take the Coco-stuff N==M subset, compute the convex-hull masks produced by the thresholded attention maps at t=25, and measure their IoU against the ground-truth boxes; if mean IoU is low or if object identity inside the target box (as scored by an off-the-shelf object detector on the final image) drops sharply whenever the source and target boxes overlap, the geometric module's localization assumption fails. A second check is a sensitivity sweep over the threshold lambda and the two fixed steps t=40 and t=25: if layout-consistency AP varies by more than a few points across reasonable values, the method's success depends on hand-picked hyperparameters rather than the decoupling principle.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mismatch between a layout condition and a natural caption is not a training-data problem but a controllability problem that can be solved at inference time. By decoupling spatial constraints into semantic and geometric consistency, the method makes an off-the-shelf Stable Diffusion model place objects where boxes ask. First, prompt editing appends missing categories such as "two apple" when the caption says only "part of a sandwich on table", and attention-map matching selects the word token whose activation map is regionally active rather than trusting the literal label. Then, at a fixed DDIM step, normalized cross-attention maps are thresholded and convex-hulled into a per-category region of interest, the latent patch inside that region is translated so its center coincides with the target box, and a diffusion-based refill replaces the vacated latents with coherent values by blending a second noise trajectory with the original latent. The paper validates the design on Coco-stuff and reports a 30% relative gain in AP for layout consistency over the previous best training-free method.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a fixed per-word activation map inside the diffusion model (at t=40 for matching and t=25 for relocation) reliably shows where each requested category is being painted, and that cutting the latent patch out, moving it, and refilling the hole with independently denoised latents preserves the object's identity and produces a coherent image.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An off-the-shelf Stable Diffusion model can follow box and keypoint layouts at inference time, so new object categories do not require paired layout-image training data.
  • Natural captions can be used as prompts: missing layout categories are appended automatically, so users are not forced into template prompts like "a {} and a {}".
  • Multiple instances of the same category no longer fight each other, because the geometric loss and latent relocation operate at the category level rather than the instance level.
  • The same recipe extends from bounding boxes to keypoint clicks, since each keypoint is treated as the center of an estimated box, widening the practical interface for layout control.
  • The reported 30% relative layout-consistency gain comes at roughly the same inference time as the previous training-free method, making it usable in interactive settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the same "find the active attention token" procedure could serve as a generic diagnostic for whether a text-to-image model has actually encoded a requested category, not just as a control step.
  • This suggests the latent-refill primitive is a reusable "move object and repaint background" operation that could be lifted into image editing, object relocation, or video-generation pipelines where a region must be vacated coherently.
  • Because the localization signal comes from a single attention scale and fixed DDIM steps, the method's margin over baselines likely shrinks for very small objects or extreme aspect ratios; a straightforward extension would be to aggregate attention across resolutions or to select the manipulation step adaptively per image.
  • If attention localization is the true bottleneck, then replacing the convex-hull heuristic with a learned or layered segmentation of attention maps would improve both RoI identification and the fidelity of the refilled region.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a training-free framework for spatial-condition-controlled text-to-image generation. It decouples a spatial condition into a semantic component and a geometric component. For semantic consistency, it completes the prompt when necessary and matches the correct attention map to each target category by combining word-distance ranking with activation statistics. For geometric consistency, it identifies a region of interest (RoI) in the latent attention map, relocates the latents in that RoI to the target bounding box, and refills the vacated region with a diffusion-based process. On COCO-Stuff, the method reports a 30% relative improvement in layout-consistency AP over the training-free BoxDiff baseline, along with ablations showing contributions from each module and an extension to keypoint conditions.

Significance. If the claims hold, the method is an interesting step toward test-time controllable generation with natural-language prompts: it does not require fine-tuning, it introduces explicit latent manipulation rather than only attention losses, and it is evaluated on a realistic dense-layout benchmark. The inclusion of prompt editing, attention-map matching, and a diffusion-based refill is clearly described, and the ablation studies (Table 2) support the value of each component. The main significance is, however, limited by a structural gap between the claimed capability for complex multi-instance layouts and the actual mechanism, and by the fact that image quality and CLIP score degrade relative to the natural-prompt baseline.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (2)] The geometric transform is category-level and cannot place multiple instances of the same category in different target boxes. The RoI identification forms a single binary mask per unique semantic token by thresholding the attention map and taking a convex hull, and Eq. (2) applies one translation vector (cg_n - cb_n) to all latents inside that mask. For several instances of one category, all instances are shifted by the same vector, so they reach their individual target boxes only if their initial relative arrangement already matches the target layout. The paper motivates 'complex layouts where multiple instances of the same category are presented' (Sec. 1), yet the quantitative evaluation that isolates geometric consistency is restricted to the N==M subset (Table 3), which contains at most one instance per category. Therefore the headline claim of handling complex multi-instance layouts is neither supported by the mechanism nor by the experiments.
  2. [Sec. 1 and Table 1] The claim that the proposed method 'outperforms them under all evaluation metrics by 9%' is contradicted by Table 1, where the proposed method has FID 39.86 versus 33.57 for BoxDiff (b) and CLIP Score 24.69 versus 26.30. The improvement is confined to layout-consistency AP; image quality and text-image alignment are worse than the natural-prompt baseline. The 30% relative boost cited in the abstract refers only to AP, so presenting the result as an overall win across all metrics is misleading and should be corrected.
  3. [Tables 1-3] The reported differences are not accompanied by error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests. Because DDIM sampling with random initial latents is stochastic, the AP differences (e.g., 3.5 vs. 2.7 in Table 1) could be within run-to-run noise. The paper should report the mean and variance over multiple seeds (or otherwise quantify uncertainty) for the main quantitative claims that support the central contribution.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 3.3] The hyperparameters λ, the attention-matching step t=40, and the geometric-consistency step T/2 are fixed without sensitivity analysis; since the method's validity depends on the reliability of attention maps at these specific timesteps, a brief ablation or a discussion of robustness is needed.
  2. [Sec. 4, Baselines] The BoxDiff baseline is modified so that the semantic token is selected as the word equal to the target class. While this is a reasonable adaptation to natural prompts, the paper should also report the original BoxDiff with natural prompts to clarify the effect of this revision on the comparison.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The sentence 'from 0.009 to 0.0027' appears to be a typo for 'from 0.9 to 2.7' in the discussion of BoxDiff's improvement after revision.
  4. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (2)] The bracket notation 'ztJ[...]K' is unconventional and hard to read; please use standard index notation for the latent array.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The keypoint extension simply converts keypoints to bounding boxes by assuming category-specific sizes, so it does not demonstrate a genuinely novel spatial-condition type. Consider a direct keypoint-conditioning mechanism or temper the claim.
  6. [Sec. 1] The citation 'Caesar et al. 2020' is used to introduce stable diffusion models, but that reference is the nuScenes paper; the correct citation for COCO-Stuff is 'Caesar, Uijlings, and Ferrari 2018'.
  7. [Appendix A] The limitations section mentions high overlap and unusual shapes, but it does not acknowledge the multi-instance limitation, which is a primary claimed capability of the method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method is evaluated with external detectors and no parameter is fitted to the reported metrics.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an inference-time algorithm, not a fitted model. The semantic-consistency stage edits prompts and selects attention maps by hand-specified statistics; the geometric stage (Eqs. 2-5) translates latent regions toward target boxes and refills the vacated area by masked blending of a fresh diffusion trajectory. Nothing in these equations defines the evaluation metrics: AP is computed with an externally pretrained YOLOv4 on COCO, CS with an external CLIP model, and FID with an external Inception network. Hyperparameters (DDIM steps t=40 and t=25, RoI threshold lambda) are manually chosen and reported, but they are not fitted to AP/CS/FID, and the measured gains are not identities: moving latents in a 64x64 space does not by itself guarantee that YOLOv4 will detect the decoded objects at the target boxes. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation: BoxDiff and LayoutDiffusion are external prior works. The N==M subset is a restrictive evaluation choice (and a limitation for multi-instance categories), but that is an experimental-scope concern, not a circular derivation. Hence no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no invented entities. Its free parameters are hand-chosen thresholds and time steps that affect where objects are placed; they are not fitted to the reported metrics, but no sensitivity analysis is given. Several domain assumptions about attention maps and latent manipulation are load-bearing.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda (activation threshold for RoI identification) = not reported
    Hand-selected threshold dividing attention maps into activated versus background pixels; no sensitivity analysis is provided (Sec 3.3, Fig 11).
  • attention matching step t=40 = 40 of 50 DDIM steps
    Chosen because visual inspection of attention maps at various steps favored step 40; no quantitative selection criterion is given (App. C.2, Fig 10).
  • geometric consistency step T/2 = 25 of 50 steps
    The authors simplified an iterative refill to a single relocation at the midpoint of denoising, saying the iterative version was unnecessary; the choice is heuristic (Sec 3.3, Eq. 5).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cross-attention maps at early DDIM steps localize the semantic content of each word token in the latent space.
    The semantic-matching and RoI-identification pipeline assumes attention response corresponds to object position (Sec 3.2, Sec 3.3).
  • domain assumption Objects are usually continuous convex polygons, so the convex hull of activated attention pixels is a valid RoI.
    Used to convert scattered activated pixels into a binary mask for latent relocation (App. C.3, Fig 11).
  • domain assumption Copying the latent patch to the target location and refilling the source location with fresh diffusion latents preserves the object's semantic identity.
    The central mechanism of geometric consistency; if this fails, the object may be corrupted or duplicated (Eq. 2-5).
  • domain assumption A pretrained YOLOv4 detector on COCO provides a reliable proxy for object locations in generated images for AP evaluation.
    AP is computed by detecting objects in generated images and comparing to ground-truth boxes; detector noise or domain gap affects the metric (App. C.4).
  • domain assumption Attention maps at DDIM step 40 are sufficiently informative to determine whether a word corresponds to an object in the final image.
    The authors set matching at t=40 after visual inspection of attention maps (App. C.2, Fig 10).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Test-time Controllable Image Generation by Explicit Spatial Constraint Enforcement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y3QPJERH

@misc{pith2026250101368,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Test-time Controllable Image Generation by Explicit Spatial Constraint Enforcement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y3QPJERH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01368}
}
abstract

Recent text-to-image generation favors various forms of spatial conditions, e.g., masks, bounding boxes, and key points. However, the majority of the prior art requires form-specific annotations to fine-tune the original model, leading to poor test-time generalizability. Meanwhile, existing training-free methods work well only with simplified prompts and spatial conditions. In this work, we propose a novel yet generic test-time controllable generation method that aims at natural text prompts and complex conditions. Specifically, we decouple spatial conditions into semantic and geometric conditions and then enforce their consistency during the image-generation process individually. As for the former, we target bridging the gap between the semantic condition and text prompts, as well as the gap between such condition and the attention map from diffusion models. To achieve this, we propose to first complete the prompt w.r.t. semantic condition, and then remove the negative impact of distracting prompt words by measuring their statistics in attention maps as well as distances in word space w.r.t. this condition. To further cope with the complex geometric conditions, we introduce a geometric transform module, in which Region-of-Interests will be identified in attention maps and further used to translate category-wise latents w.r.t. geometric condition. More importantly, we propose a diffusion-based latents-refill method to explicitly remove the impact of latents at the RoI, reducing the artifacts on generated images. Experiments on Coco-stuff dataset showcase 30$\%$ relative boost compared to SOTA training-free methods on layout consistency evaluation metrics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01368 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. By enforcing semantic and geometric consistency, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Given text prompts and layouts, our method enforces semantic consistency by prompt editing and attention map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. a, the latent map of ’suit’ has a more visible or closer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Prompt editing enables the discovery of missing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: To refill b t with natural values, we introduce a lightweight diffusion model to iteratively update it. other. Therefore, we propose a category-level loss for each unique Sm. By enforcing Inner-Box constraint and Outer￾Box constraint on each category, we are able to gu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: In the subset where N equals to M, our method is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Images generated by our method using key [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The examples demonstrate the limitations of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: We visualized attention maps and found that step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: We collected attention map and mask the object [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Examples of spatial conditions with varying num [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Camparing with Boxdiff and Stable Diffusion, our method is able to generates objects such as “tree” and “mountains” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: In example (a), our proposed method correctly generate three kinds of food in the lunchbox according to the spatial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The spatial condition “person” in example (a) and the spatial condition “sun” in example (b) are missing in methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: In example (a), our method correctly generated two “boats” in the left and right of the image. In example (b), the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Semantic consistency matches the correct attention map for the “girl”, and geometric consistency “move” the “girl” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The “hat”, “dog” and “sunglasses” are relocalized by geometric consistency and been generated in correct position. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * 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 mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Ashual, O.; and Wolf, L. 2019. Specifying object attributes and relations in interactive scene generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 4561--4569

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Bar-Tal, O.; Chefer, H.; Tov, O.; Herrmann, C.; Paiss, R.; Zada, S.; Ephrat, A.; Hur, J.; Li, Y.; Michaeli, T.; et al. 2024. Lumiere: A space-time diffusion model for video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12945

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Bochkovskiy, A.; Wang, C.-Y.; and Liao, H.-Y. M. 2020. Yolov4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10934

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    H.; Vora, S.; Liong, V

    Caesar, H.; Bankiti, V.; Lang, A. H.; Vora, S.; Liong, V. E.; Xu, Q.; Krishnan, A.; Pan, Y.; Baldan, G.; and Beijbom, O. 2020. nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11621--11631

    2020

  7. [7]

    Caesar, H.; Uijlings, J. R. R.; and Ferrari, V. 2018. COCO-Stuff: Thing and Stuff Classes in Context. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2018, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, June 18-22, 2018 , 1209--1218. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE Computer Society

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Couairon, G.; Careil, M.; Cord, M.; Lathuili \`e re, S.; and Verbeek, J. 2023. Zero-shot spatial layout conditioning for text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2174--2183

    work page 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Dhandra, B.; Malemath, V.; Mallikarjun, H.; and Hegadi, R. 2006. Skew detection in binary image documents based on image dilation and region labeling approach. In 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR'06), volume 2, 954--957. IEEE

    2006

  2. [10]

    Heusel, M.; Ramsauer, H.; Unterthiner, T.; Nessler, B.; and Hochreiter, S. 2017. GANs Trained by a Two Time-Scale Update Rule Converge to a Local Nash Equilibrium. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Syste...

    2017

  3. [11]

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

    2020

  4. [12]

    Johnson, J.; Gupta, A.; and Fei-Fei, L. 2018. Image generation from scene graphs. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1219--1228

    2018

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    Kim, Y.; Lee, J.; Kim, J.-H.; Ha, J.-W.; and Zhu, J.-Y. 2023. Dense text-to-image generation with attention modulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 7701--7711

    2023

  7. [15]

    Li, Y.; Liu, H.; Wu, Q.; Mu, F.; Yang, J.; Gao, J.; Li, C.; and Lee, Y. J. 2023. Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 22511--22521

    2023

  8. [16]

    Li, Z.; Wu, J.; Koh, I.; Tang, Y.; and Sun, L. 2021. Image synthesis from layout with locality-aware mask adaption. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 13819--13828

    2021

  9. [17]

    A.; Shih, K

    Liu, G.; Reda, F. A.; Shih, K. J.; Wang, T.-C.; Tao, A.; and Catanzaro, B. 2018. Image inpainting for irregular holes using partial convolutions. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 85--100

    2018

  10. [18]

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

    2022

  11. [19]

    Nichol, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Ramesh, A.; Shyam, P.; Mishkin, P.; McGrew, B.; Sutskever, I.; and Chen, M. 2021. Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. CoRR, abs/2303.08774

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Paszke, A.; Gross, S.; Massa, F.; Lerer, A.; Bradbury, J.; Chanan, G.; Killeen, T.; Lin, Z.; Gimelshein, N.; Antiga, L.; et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  14. [22]

    Qi, Z.; Huang, G.; Huang, Z.; Guo, Q.; Chen, J.; Han, J.; Wang, J.; Zhang, G.; Liu, L.; Ding, E.; et al. 2023. Layered Rendering Diffusion Model for Zero-Shot Guided Image Synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18435

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Qu, L.; Wu, S.; Fei, H.; Nie, L.; and Chua, T.-S. 2023. Layoutllm-t2i: Eliciting layout guidance from llm for text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 643--654

    2023

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    Ramesh, A.; Pavlov, M.; Goh, G.; Gray, S.; Voss, C.; Radford, A.; Chen, M.; and Sutskever, I. 2021. Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generation. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event , volume 139 of Proceeding...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Reed, S.; Akata, Z.; Yan, X.; Logeswaran, L.; Schiele, B.; and Lee, H. 2016. Generative adversarial text to image synthesis. In International conference on machine learning, 1060--1069. PMLR

    2016

  19. [27]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022 a . High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022 , 10674--10685. IEEE

    2022

  20. [28]

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

    2022

  21. [29]

    Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; and Brox, T. 2015. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2015 - 18th International Conference Munich, Germany, October 5 - 9, 2015, Proceedings, Part...

    2015

  22. [30]

    L.; Ghasemipour, S

    Saharia, C.; Chan, W.; Saxena, S.; Li, L.; Whang, J.; Denton, E. L.; Ghasemipour, S. K. S.; Lopes, R. G.; Ayan, B. K.; Salimans, T.; Ho, J.; Fleet, D. J.; and Norouzi, M. 2022. Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Language Understanding. In Advances in Neura...

    2022

  23. [31]

    J.; Zaremba, W.; Cheung, V.; Radford, A.; and Chen, X

    Salimans, T.; Goodfellow, I. J.; Zaremba, W.; Cheung, V.; Radford, A.; and Chen, X. 2016. Improved Techniques for Training GANs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2016, December 5-10, 2016, Barce...

    2016

  24. [32]

    Solarte, B.; Wu, C.-H.; Liu, Y.-C.; Tsai, Y.-H.; and Sun, M. 2022. 360-mlc: Multi-view layout consistency for self-training and hyper-parameter tuning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 6133--6146

    2022

  25. [33]

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

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sun, W.; and Wu, T. 2022. Learning Layout and Style Reconfigurable GANs for Controllable Image Synthesis. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , 44(9): 5070--5087

    2022

  27. [35]

    Szegedy, C.; Vanhoucke, V.; Ioffe, S.; Shlens, J.; and Wojna, Z. 2016. Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2016, Las Vegas, NV, USA, June 27-30, 2016 , 2818--2826. IEEE Computer Society

    2016

  28. [36]

    Xie, J.; Li, Y.; Huang, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhang, W.; Zheng, Y.; and Shou, M. Z. 2023. Boxdiff: Text-to-image synthesis with training-free box-constrained diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 7452--7461

    2023

  29. [37]

    Yang, Z.; Liu, D.; Wang, C.; Yang, J.; and Tao, D. 2022. Modeling image composition for complex scene generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7764--7773

    2022

  30. [38]

    Zhang, H.; Xu, T.; Li, H.; Zhang, S.; Wang, X.; Huang, X.; and Metaxas, D. N. 2017. Stackgan: Text to photo-realistic image synthesis with stacked generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 5907--5915

    2017

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    Zheng, G.; Zhou, X.; Li, X.; Qi, Z.; Shan, Y.; and Li, X. 2023. Layoutdiffusion: Controllable diffusion model for layout-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 22490--22499

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.