Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 134 references

Improving Physical Object State Representation in Text-to-Image Generative Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Synthetic empty-scene data fixes image AI's 'full state' bias

desk verdict Solid data-centric fix for object-state failures; headline gains are likely inflated by same-model judge, but the independent VQA metric and generalization results make it worth a serious look. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02236 v1 pith:SLUFEXM3 submitted 2025-05-04 cs.CV cs.AI

Tianle Chen , Chaitanya Chakka , Deepti Ghadiyaram This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords text-to-imagegenerationobjectstatesemptyandabsentnegationpromptingsyntheticdatapipelineLoRAfine-tuningvision-languageevaluationStateBench
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

Text-to-image models trained on web-scale data almost always render a kitchen shelf or table in its 'full' state, because that is what the data shows and because captions rarely mention absent objects. This paper claims that a fully automatic pipeline—LLM-generated prompts about empty or absent objects, synthetic images generated from those prompts, automatic filtering by a vision-language judge, and recaptioning into natural phrasings—produces training data that fixes much of this failure. LoRA fine-tuning of five open models on the resulting 7,600 image-text pairs lifts average prompt-image alignment by 8.2 points on a curated subset of GenAI-Bench and 24.6 points on the authors' new Object State Bench, and the gain transfers to objects never seen in training. The point of the paper is that object-state understanding can be taught cheaply with targeted synthetic data rather than requiring architectural changes or inference-time correction.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a filter-then-finetune synthetic data loop. An LLM writes thousands of short prompts describing everyday objects in empty or absent states; a diffusion model turns them into candidate images; a vision-language model keeps only candidates that truly show the requested absence; and an LLM rewrites the surviving prompts into more natural, non-template wording. Fine-tuning with low-rank adapters (LoRA) then lets each base model absorb the visual pattern of 'absence' without retraining it wholesale. What carries the argument is the filtering step, which converts noisy synthetic generations into a clean training signal, and the recaptioning step, worth several points by the paper's ablation, which keeps the model from latching onto the single word 'empty.'

What would settle it

Score the fine-tuned and baseline models on a human-annotated subset of Object State Bench, or with a vision-language judge that played no role in generating or filtering the training data; if the 24.6-point average lead shrinks to near zero or reverses, the apparent improvement is an artifact of the overlapping judge rather than a real gain in object-state generation. A second check is to compute paired per-prompt differences with confidence intervals, since the paper reports no significance testing and gains within noise would also weaken the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Current text-to-image systems fail on prompts like 'a table without any bottle' or 'an empty tumbler,' often regenerating the very object that should be absent; the paper attributes this to contextual bias in training data and to text encoders' weak grasp of negation. The paper's discovery is that such state concepts can be instilled by fine-tuning with synthetic examples that make absence visible. The pipeline curates roughly 3,000 everyday objects, writes template prompts for their empty states, generates candidate images with Stable Diffusion 1.5, filters out any image that a vision-language model judges not to show the requested absence, and paraphrases the prompts to avoid template-like wording. Fine-tuning with low-rank adapters on the filtered set improves average scores across Stable Diffusion 1.5, 2.1, SDXL, Flux Dev, and OmniGen on both evaluation sets; holds up on 100 unseen objects; leaves full-state generation and unrelated prompts largely intact; and outperforms fine-tuning on matched real data from COCO and VidOSC. The authors take this as evidence that the model learns a generalizable notion of an object's empty or absent state rather than memorizing training examples.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a vision-language model's yes/no answer reliably measures whether an image shows the requested empty or absent state; since the same judge filters the training data and later scores the outputs, the reported gains could partly reflect the judge favoring images that match its own filtering choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Across Stable Diffusion 1.5, 2.1, SDXL, Flux Dev, and OmniGen, average alignment with object-state prompts rises 8.2 points on GenAI-Object-State and 24.6 points on Object State Bench, so the fix transfers across architectures.
  • Fine-tuned models also improve on 100 objects that never appeared in the synthetic training set, meaning the learned state concept is not just memorization.
  • Training on synthetic 'empty state' pairs beats fine-tuning on the same volume of real images from COCO and VidOSC, which suggests data composition, not dataset size, is the bottleneck for this failure mode.
  • Recaptioning template prompts into conversational negatives adds 3-8 points depending on benchmark and metric, so how absence is phrased is itself a significant part of the cure.
  • Full-state prompts, unrelated GenAI-Bench prompts, and visual quality (FID, CLIP score, user preference) stay roughly level after fine-tuning, indicating the targeted data does not degrade general generation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the same vision-language model filters the training data and scores the results, part of the reported gain may reflect the judge rewarding images that resemble its own filtering behavior; an independent judge or human labels would give a truer effect size.
  • Editorial inference: the same synthetic-data loop could plausibly attack sibling failure modes the authors name as future work—counting, spatial relations, and attribute negation—since the mechanism is just 'generate candidate, filter on the target relation, fine-tune.'
  • Editorial inference: the 400-step, 7,600-pair recipe is probably not the optimum; scaling the object list, using a stronger generator for the synthetic candidates, or adding negative examples of objects that should be present could push the same idea further.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 presents an automatic pipeline for generating synthetic training data that depicts objects in empty or absent states (e.g., 'an empty bookshelf', 'a table without any bottle'). The pipeline uses GPT-4o-mini to generate and rephrase prompts, and Stable Diffusion 1.5 to render images, with GPT-4o-mini as a filter to keep only images that correctly show the target state. The resulting 7,600 synthetic image-text pairs are used to fine-tune five open-source text-to-image models (SD1.5, SD2.1, SDXL, Flux Dev, OmniGen) via LoRA. The authors evaluate on a manually filtered subset of GenAI-Bench negation prompts (214 prompts, called GenAI-Object-State) and on a new 200-prompt benchmark (Object State Bench). They report average improvements of 8.2 percentage points (GPT-4o-mini score) and 5.2 points (FLAN-T5 VQA score) on GenAI-Object-State, and 24.6 and 17.2 points on Object State Bench. Additional experiments cover generalization to unseen objects, performance on full-state prompts, the effect of the data generator, comparison with real-world datasets (COCO, VidOSC), recaptioning, tuning steps, visual quality (FID, CLIP, user study), and CommonsenseT2I.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the paper would provide a simple, data-centric recipe for improving object-state understanding in text-to-image models, with potentially broad applicability. The strengths are the reproducibility efforts (released code and prompts), the breadth of models tested, and the inclusion of an independent VQA metric that partially corroborates the results. The cross-model consistency (five models show improvement on both benchmarks) and the generalization to unseen objects are encouraging. However, the significance is tempered by the circular use of GPT-4o-mini in data filtering and evaluation, the lack of statistical validation, and the manual curation of the evaluation set, which jointly leave the magnitude of the true effect uncertain.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 4 and Fig. 11, Table 1] The evaluation and training-data filtering use the same GPT-4o-mini model with near-identical prompts (Fig. 4 vs Fig. 11). This creates a closed loop: the model is fine-tuned to satisfy GPT-4o-mini's notion of emptiness/absence, and the same system then measures that notion. The independent FLAN-T5 VQA score (Table 1) shows smaller gains (e.g., +5.2 vs +8.2 on GenAI-Object-State), consistent with a partial judge-alignment effect. I request an evaluation on a held-out human-annotated subset or with a different VLM (e.g., GPT-4o or Claude) to quantify the effect, and a discussion of the discrepancy.
  2. [Tables 1-7] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are provided for any of the reported accuracy numbers. With only 214 and 200 prompts respectively, a difference of 5 percentage points (e.g., SD1.5 GPT: 16% vs 21%) may not be statistically robust. The word 'significant' is used loosely throughout (e.g., abstract, Sec. 4.3). I request bootstrap confidence intervals or a paired significance test for the main comparisons, and a clarification of which differences actually reach significance.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, GenAI-Object-State subset description] The manual filtering of GenAI-Bench's 347 negation prompts to 214 (Sec. 4.1) is subjective and undocumented. The criteria for 'more aligned to our task' are not stated, nor are examples of excluded prompts or inter-annotator agreement. A manually curated benchmark with a subjective filtering step can bias the seemingly improvement if the retained prompts disproportionately match the training distribution. I ask that the full list of 214 prompts and the exclusion list with reasons be released, or that an objective filtering procedure (e.g., keyword-based or using an independent model) be used and documented.
  4. [Sec. 4.8 and Table 7] Section 4.8 claims that fine-tuning does not deteriorate performance on unrelated prompts based on a random sample of 50 GenAI-Bench prompts. However, Table 7 shows consistent degradation on the CommonsenseT2I benchmark for four of five models (e.g., SD2.1 GPT: 41% to 36%; Flux: 45% to 40%). These results contradict the claim. The authors should either reconcile these findings, provide a more nuanced statement about the trade-off, or limit the claim in Sec. 4.8 to the specific sample used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'across four models' but Table 1 reports five models; the Introduction also says 'four open-source models' (line 2). Please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The sentence 'We again use GPT 4o-mini [10] to filter out images which incorrectly capture object states as mentioned in 3 and to rephrase the template-like prompts 10' contains unclear references; presumably it should refer to Sections 3 and Fig. 10. Please fix the wording.
  3. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption says 'passive voive prompts' and the described transformation is not passive voice in the linguistic sense; the example 'An empty table' → 'A table without any bottles on it' is not passive. Please correct the terminology and the typo.
  4. [Table 9 vs Sec. 4.2] Table 9 lists resolution 512 for Flux.1 DEV and OmniGen, while Sec. 4.2 states these models generate 768×768. Please clarify which resolution was actually used for fine-tuning and inference.
  5. [References] The SDXL reference [17] is actually SDEdit; the SDXL paper should be cited as [21] only. Also, [24] is used for both Stable Diffusion 1.5 and 2.1, which is acceptable as the original paper, but the naming in the table rows should be consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Headline GPT-score gains partly circular: the same GPT-4o-mini judge filtered the training data and scores the final images, though the independent VQA metric gives the central claim non-circular support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.1 (Implementation Details), Fig. 4, Fig. 11, Sec. 4.3 / Table 1]
    "Fig. 4 (filtering): '...check if the main object appears empty or unoccupied and confirm that the described absent object is not present in the image... Return 'Yes' or 'No'.' Fig. 11 (evaluation): '...The caption is: {original prompt}. Specifically, check if the main object appears empty or unoccupied... Return 'yes' or 'no'.' Sec. 4.1: 'uses GPT-4o-mini [10] in every step.'"

    The same LLM with nearly identical instructions is the acceptance function for training images and the scoring function for the headline metric. Fine-tuning shifts models toward images that GPT-4o-mini accepted as 'empty/absent'; the reported GPT gain therefore partly measures agreement with that same judge rather than an independent physical-state correctness. Table 1's independent FLAN-T5 VQA metric improves less (+5.2 vs +8.2 on GenAI-Object-State; +17.2 vs +24.6 on Object State Bench), the expected signature of judge-alignment inflation. The claim is not wholly forced because VQA, human-curated prompts, and unseen-object tests add external signal, but the headline GPT numbers are partly circular.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that fine-tuning on its synthetic dataset improves object-state alignment—is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. It is evaluated against an external subset of GenAI-Bench (214 negation prompts), a newly curated 200-prompt benchmark (half human-written), unseen objects, and an independent FLAN-T5 VQA metric, all of which show improvement. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem appears. However, the primary GPT-4o-mini metric is the same model, with almost the same prompt, that filtered the training data; this creates a partial closed loop in which part of the reported gain may reflect the fine-tuned model catering to the judge's specific notion of emptiness/absence. The independent VQA gains are consistently smaller, and the paper reports no confidence intervals or significance tests, leaving the size of the GPT-measured effect uncertain. This is a genuine but partial circularity, not a full reduction of the central claim, so the score is 5 rather than 6+.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The ledger lists the main design choices and domain assumptions that the empirical claim rests on; none are derived from first principles.

free parameters (3)
  • fine-tuning steps = 400
    Chosen based on validation on a 50-sample set (Appendix F); no error bars shown.
  • CFG scale for synthetic data generation = 5.0
    Chosen to increase diversity while staying close to the prompt (Sec 4.1).
  • LoRA rank = 4 (SD family), 16 (Flux, OmniGen)
    Standard hyperparameter values; no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o-mini can reliably judge whether an image depicts an object in an empty or absent state
    Used for filtering (Fig. 4) and evaluation (Fig. 11); if the judge is biased, the measured gains are unreliable.
  • domain assumption Synthetic images from Stable Diffusion 1.5 are sufficiently realistic and diverse to teach object states to other models
    The training data is generated with SD 1.5 and then used to fine-tune other architectures (Sec 3-4).
  • domain assumption The 3000 objects and 200 benchmark prompts generated by GPT-4o-mini are a representative sample of everyday objects and natural language about object states
    No human verification of the object list or the machine-generated half of the benchmark is described (Sec 4.1).
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning on empty-state images does not substantially degrade other image-generation capabilities
    Tested on CommonsenseT2I and random GenAI-Bench prompts, but the tests show small degradation, so the assumption holds only approximately (Sec 4.8, 4.10).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving Physical Object State Representation in Text-to-Image Generative Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLUFEXM3

@misc{pith2026250502236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving Physical Object State Representation in Text-to-Image Generative Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLUFEXM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02236}
}
read the original abstract

Current text-to-image generative models struggle to accurately represent object states (e.g., "a table without a bottle," "an empty tumbler"). In this work, we first design a fully-automatic pipeline to generate high-quality synthetic data that accurately captures objects in varied states. Next, we fine-tune several open-source text-to-image models on this synthetic data. We evaluate the performance of the fine-tuned models by quantifying the alignment of the generated images to their prompts using GPT4o-mini, and achieve an average absolute improvement of 8+% across four models on the public GenAI-Bench dataset. We also curate a collection of 200 prompts with a specific focus on common objects in various physical states. We demonstrate a significant improvement of an average of 24+% over the baseline on this dataset. We release all evaluation prompts and code.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02236 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Current text-to-image models struggle to depict common objects in varied physical states, inaccurately include unintended objects or fail to depict the requested empty or absence state (e.g., prompting for “A kitchen counter without any food” still results in a kitchen count full of food). Our method addresses these issues and yields accurate object state representation. Abstract Current text-to-image generative mod… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. State-of-the-art closed-source text-to-image and text-to-video models struggle to depict objects in absent or negation states. For Gen-3 (a text-to-video model), we show a single extracted frame. This highlights the limitations of current advanced generative systems in accurately representing objects in simple and common physical states. lel, reinforcement learning (RL) techniques have been ex￾plored to fine-tune ge… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the proposed synthetic data generation pipeline: We generate prompts describing common objects in dif￾ferent physical states. We next create images from the prompts, evaluate for the correct representation of the object state using GPT4o-mini [10]. We rephrase prompts to introduce diversity in the sentence structures, length, and objects specified. all generation pipeline but also offers an extensible so… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: System prompt used on the generated images for filter￾ing out images not aligning with the provided prompt. text to image generative model. Following this, we lever￾age Large Language Models (LLMs) to refine prompts and introduce diversity in their syntax. We also use …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of object state improvement for Stable Diffusion-2.1: (top) row shows the Stable Diffusion￾2.1 baseline model, while the (bottom) row displays fine-tuned with our synthetic data pipeline, yielding more precise object state representation. 4.1. Im…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of object state improvement for OmniGen: (top) row shows the OmniGen baseline model, while the (bottom) row displays fine-tuned with our synthetic data pipeline, yielding more precise object state representation. Prompt for recaptioning into pass…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: System Recaptioning Prompt: This figure shows the system prompt that transforms template-like prompts into passive voice. The examples instruct the model to enhance the prompt by adding a missing object and avoiding redundant emptiness de￾scriptors. cently introduced …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: System Prompt for Evaluation: This figure presents the prompt used to assess whether a generated image accurately represents the absence or empty state of an object as described in the caption. titled Object-state-Bench. This benchmark consists of two parts: one-half …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative Tuning Effects: Figure (a) shows cases where tuning improves the depiction of the object state (although with some imperfections), while Figure (b) illustrates instances where tuning overemphasizes emptiness, leading to a deviation from an accurate object …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: List of 100 unseen objects used for evaluation. These objects, which are distinct from the 3000 training objects, are de￾tailed here for reproducibility. (Sec.4). B. List of Full state prompts In this section, we provide the full state prompts in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: List of 100 full state prompts used for ablation study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Training Sample Comparison from Different Data Sources: The top row shows samples from our synthetic dataset, the middle row displays samples from COCO [13], and the bottom row presents samples from VidOSC [32]. Our synthetic dataset clearly captures object empty stat…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Additional qualitative examples of object state failures in advanced text-to-image generation models. For example, the figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vision-language models do not understand negation

    Kumail Alhamoud, Shaden Alshammari, Yonglong Tian, Guohao Li, Philip Torr, Yoon Kim, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. Vision-language models do not understand negation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09425, 2025. 2

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images

    Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 18208–18218, 2022. 2

    2022

  3. [3]

    Lan- guage models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Sub- biah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakan- tan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Lan- guage models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020. 4

    1901

  4. [4]

    Janus- pro: Unified multimodal understanding and generation with data and model scaling

    Xiaokang Chen, Zhiyu Wu, Xingchao Liu, Zizheng Pan, Wen Liu, Zhenda Xie, Xingkai Yu, and Chong Ruan. Janus- pro: Unified multimodal understanding and generation with data and model scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17811 ,

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Scaling instruction- finetuned language models

    Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa 9 Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. Scaling instruction- finetuned language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(70):1–53, 2024. 6

    2024

  6. [6]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

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

    2021

  7. [7]

    Commonsense-t2i challenge: Can text-to- image generation models understand commonsense? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07546, 2024

    Xingyu Fu, Muyu He, Yujie Lu, William Yang Wang, and Dan Roth. Commonsense-t2i challenge: Can text-to- image generation models understand commonsense? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07546, 2024. 8, 9

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Introducing gen-3 alpha: A new fron- tier for video generation, 2024

    Anastasis Germanidis. Introducing gen-3 alpha: A new fron- tier for video generation, 2024. Accessed: 2025-03-27. 2

    2024

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022. 6

    2022

  2. [10]

    Gpt-4o system card

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perel- man, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Weli- hinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024. 3, 4, 5, 6

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Black Forest Labs. Flux. https://github.com/ black-forest-labs/flux, 2024. 2, 6, 8, 9, 12

    2024

  4. [12]

    Genai-bench: Evaluating and improv- ing compositional text-to-visual generation

    Baiqi Li, Zhiqiu Lin, Deepak Pathak, Jiayao Li, Yixin Fei, Kewen Wu, Tiffany Ling, Xide Xia, Pengchuan Zhang, Gra- ham Neubig, et al. Genai-bench: Evaluating and improv- ing compositional text-to-visual generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13743, 2024. 2, 5, 8

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceeding...

    2014

  6. [14]

    Evaluating text-to-visual generation with image-to-text gen- eration

    Zhiqiu Lin, Deepak Pathak, Baiqi Li, Jiayao Li, Xide Xia, Graham Neubig, Pengchuan Zhang, and Deva Ramanan. Evaluating text-to-visual generation with image-to-text gen- eration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01291, 2024. 6, 9

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Correcting diffusion generation through resampling

    Yujian Liu, Yang Zhang, Tommi Jaakkola, and Shiyu Chang. Correcting diffusion generation through resampling. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8713–8723, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    Stable diffusion dataset generation for downstream classifi- cation tasks

    Eugenio Lomurno, Matteo D’Oria, and Matteo Matteucci. Stable diffusion dataset generation for downstream classifi- cation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02698, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jia- jun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 6, 7, 8, 9

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Do pre-trained vision-language models en- code object states? arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10488, 2024

    Kaleb Newman, Shijie Wang, Yuan Zang, David Heffren, and Chen Sun. Do pre-trained vision-language models en- code object states? arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10488, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dall-e 3: Opinionated, boring, 2023

    OpenAI. Dall-e 3: Opinionated, boring, 2023. 2

    2023

  12. [20]

    Sora: Generating videos from text, 2024

    OpenAI. Sora: Generating videos from text, 2024. Ac- cessed: 2025-03-27. 2

    2024

  13. [21]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 6, 7, 8, 9

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Diffusion policy policy optimization

    Allen Z Ren, Justin Lidard, Lars L Ankile, Anthony Simeonov, Pulkit Agrawal, Anirudha Majumdar, Ben- jamin Burchfiel, Hongkai Dai, and Max Simchowitz. Diffusion policy policy optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00588, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12

    2022

  17. [25]

    Improv- ing explicit spatial relationships in text-to-image generation through an automatically derived dataset

    Ander Salaberria, Gorka Azkune, Oier Lopez de Lacalle, Aitor Soroa, Eneko Agirre, and Frank Keller. Improv- ing explicit spatial relationships in text-to-image generation through an automatically derived dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00587, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Learn” no” to say” yes” bet- ter: Improving vision-language models via negations

    Jaisidh Singh, Ishaan Shrivastava, Mayank Vatsa, Richa Singh, and Aparna Bharati. Learn” no” to say” yes” bet- ter: Improving vision-language models via negations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20312, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean- Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Diffusion model align- ment using direct preference optimization

    Bram Wallace, Meihua Dang, Rafael Rafailov, Linqi Zhou, Aaron Lou, Senthil Purushwalkam, Stefano Ermon, Caiming Xiong, Shafiq Joty, and Nikhil Naik. Diffusion model align- ment using direct preference optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision a...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Emu3: Next-token prediction is all you need

    Xinlong Wang, Xiaosong Zhang, Zhengxiong Luo, Quan Sun, Yufeng Cui, Jinsheng Wang, Fan Zhang, Yueze Wang, Zhen Li, Qiying Yu, et al. Emu3: Next-token prediction is all you need. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18869, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Self-correcting llm-controlled diffu- sion models

    Tsung-Han Wu, Long Lian, Joseph E Gonzalez, Boyi Li, and Trevor Darrell. Self-correcting llm-controlled diffu- sion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6327– 6336, 2024. 2

    2024

  23. [31]

    Omnigen: Unified image generation

    Shitao Xiao, Yueze Wang, Junjie Zhou, Huaying Yuan, Xin- grun Xing, Ruiran Yan, Shuting Wang, Tiejun Huang, and Zheng Liu. Omnigen: Unified image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11340, 2024. 2, 6, 8, 9, 12

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Learn- ing object state changes in videos: An open-world perspec- tive

    Zihui Xue, Kumar Ashutosh, and Kristen Grauman. Learn- ing object state changes in videos: An open-world perspec- tive. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 18493–18503,

  25. [33]

    Lost in translation: Latent con- cept misalignment in text-to-image diffusion models

    Juntu Zhao, Junyu Deng, Yixin Ye, Chongxuan Li, Zhijie Deng, and Dequan Wang. Lost in translation: Latent con- cept misalignment in text-to-image diffusion models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 318–333. Springer, 2024. 2 11 Appendices A. List of Unseen Objec...

    2024

  26. [34]

    A full bottle of water is placed on the table

  27. [35]

    The cup is filled to the brim with hot coffee

  28. [36]

    The plate is loaded with a delicious meal

  29. [37]

    The bowl is full of fresh fruit

  30. [38]

    The glass is filled with orange juice

  31. [39]

    The jar is packed with homemade jam

  32. [40]

    The container is filled with rice

  33. [41]

    The box is stuffed with chocolates

  34. [42]

    The bag is filled with groceries

  35. [43]

    The wallet is thick with cash

  36. [44]

    The suitcase is packed with clothes for the trip

  37. [45]

    The backpack is filled with school sup- plies

  38. [46]

    The envelope is stuffed with important documents

  39. [47]

    The fuel tank is completely full, ready for a long drive

  40. [48]

    The trash can is overflowing with garbage

  41. [49]

    The sink is full of dirty dishes

  42. [50]

    The bathtub is filled with warm, soapy water

  43. [51]

    The fridge is stocked with fresh food

  44. [52]

    The freezer is packed with frozen meals

  45. [53]

    The oven is full of baking cookies

  46. [54]

    The pan is filled with sizzling vegeta- bles

  47. [55]

    The pot is bubbling with hot soup

  48. [56]

    The dish rack is full of clean plates

  49. [57]

    The storage box is packed with winter clothes

  50. [58]

    The wardrobe is filled with dresses and suits

  51. [59]

    The bookshelf is packed with novels and textbooks

  52. [60]

    The laundry basket is full of dirty clothes

  53. [61]

    The washing machine is loaded with clothes

  54. [62]

    The dryer is tumbling a full load of laundry

  55. [63]

    The pencil case is filled with pens and markers

  56. [64]

    The toolbox is stocked with hammers and screwdrivers

  57. [65]

    The drawer is stuffed with office sup- plies

  58. [66]

    The file cabinet is filled with paper- work

  59. [67]

    The purse is heavy with personal items

  60. [68]

    The shopping cart is loaded with gro- ceries

  61. [69]

    The refrigerator drawer is filled with fresh vegetables

  62. [70]

    The spice rack is stocked with herbs and spices

  63. [71]

    The medicine cabinet is filled with bot- tles of pills

  64. [72]

    The candy jar is brimming with sweets

  65. [73]

    The flower vase is full of fresh roses

  66. [74]

    The aquarium is teeming with colorful fish

  67. [75]

    The tea kettle is filled with boiling wa- ter

  68. [76]

    The thermos is full of hot coffee

  69. [77]

    The lunchbox is packed with sand- wiches and snacks

  70. [78]

    The picnic basket is overflowing with food and drinks

  71. [79]

    The trash bag is full and needs to be taken out

  72. [80]

    The egg carton is completely full

  73. [81]

    The gas cylinder is filled with propane

  74. [82]

    The rain barrel is full after the storm

  75. [83]

    The bathtub is overflowing with bub- bles

  76. [84]

    The hard drive is full of stored files

  77. [85]

    The email inbox is filled with unread messages

  78. [86]

    The car trunk is packed with luggage

  79. [87]

    The bread basket is full of warm rolls

  80. [88]

    The coffee pot is filled with fresh- brewed coffee

  81. [89]

    The pet food bowl is full for dinner time

  82. [90]

    The ice cube tray is full and ready to freeze

  83. [91]

    The cup holder is filled with soda cans

  84. [92]

    The suitcase pocket is stuffed with travel essentials

  85. [93]

    The fishing net is full of fresh catch

  86. [94]

    The raincoat pockets are filled with small items

  87. [95]

    The coin purse is full of loose change

  88. [96]

    The fruit basket is overflowing with apples and bananas

  89. [97]

    The measuring cup is filled with flour

  90. [98]

    The battery pack is fully charged

  91. [99]

    The balloon is filled with helium

  92. [100]

    The notepad is full of handwritten notes

  93. [101]

    The chalkboard is covered with writ- ing

  94. [102]

    The gift bag is stuffed with presents

  95. [103]

    The music playlist is full of favorite songs

  96. [104]

    The wine cellar is stocked with vintage bottles

  97. [105]

    The parking lot is completely full

  98. [106]

    The stadium is packed with cheering fans

  99. [107]

    The toy chest is overflowing with stuffed animals

  100. [108]

    The makeup bag is full of beauty prod- ucts

  101. [109]

    The tool shed is stocked with garden- ing equipment

  102. [110]

    The bakery display case is filled with fresh pastries

  103. [111]

    The cookie jar is full of chocolate chip cookies

  104. [112]

    The seed packet is full of flower seeds

  105. [113]

    The pet carrier is filled with cozy blan- kets

  106. [114]

    The luggage rack is stacked with heavy suitcases

  107. [115]

    The fishing bucket is full of water and fish

  108. [116]

    The scrapbook is filled with memories

  109. [117]

    The classroom board is covered with notes

  110. [118]

    The violin case is packed with acces- sories

  111. [119]

    The music stand is filled with sheet music

  112. [120]

    The bike basket is loaded with fresh groceries

  113. [121]

    The file folder is stuffed with reports

  114. [122]

    The bread bin is stocked with fresh loaves

  115. [123]

    The lemonade pitcher is full and ready to serve

  116. [124]

    The attic is packed with old furniture and boxes

  117. [125]

    The beach bag is full of towels and sunscreen

  118. [126]

    The hospital bed is occupied with a pa- tient

  119. [127]

    The rain boot is filled with water after the storm

  120. [128]

    The marshmallow jar is overflowing with sweets

  121. [129]

    The milk carton is completely full

  122. [130]

    The Christmas stocking is filled with gifts

  123. [131]

    The dog’s food bowl is filled with kib- ble

  124. [132]

    The holiday suitcase is packed with va- cation clothes

  125. [133]

    Figure 14

    The bus is completely full of passen- gers. Figure 14. List of 100 full state prompts used for ablation study. 13 A storage box without any contents inside. Stable Diffusion1.5 + Ours COCO VidOSC A book rack without any books on it. A bench without any cushions. A man enjoys c...

  126. [800]

    Based on validation on a 50-sample set, we adopt 400 steps for all subsequent experiments

    These trends suggest that around 400 tuning steps offer the best balance between semantic alignment and stability. Based on validation on a 50-sample set, we adopt 400 steps for all subsequent experiments. Model 200 Steps 400 Steps 800 Steps Stable Diffusion 1.5 20% 21% 18% St...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.