Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references

IMAGE-ALCHEMY: Advancing subject fidelity in personalised text-to-image generation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage separation of scene generation from subject insertion lets a LoRA-fine-tuned SDXL insert a personalized subject at 0.789 DINO fidelity while leaving the base model untouched.

desk verdict A clever two-stage personalization pipeline with a promising idea and weak empirical support; worth refereeing if the evaluation is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10743 v1 pith:2IVZ7NDV submitted 2025-05-15 cs.CV

Amritanshu Tiwari , Cherish Puniani , Kaustubh Sharma , Ojasva Nema This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords personalizedtext-to-imagegenerationsubjectfidelityStableDiffusionXLLoRAfine-tuningsegmentation-drivenimage-to-imageraretokenselectioncatastrophicforgettingDINOsimilarity
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 establish that personalizing a text-to-image diffusion model does not have to pay the usual price in lost compositional ability. It proposes a two-stage pipeline: first the untouched base model (Stable Diffusion XL) generates the whole scene with the subject replaced by its class label; then a segmentation model finds and blurs that subject region and a LoRA-fine-tuned copy of the model redraws only that region from a rare placeholder token. The paper argues this separation preserves the base model's broader generation skills while inserting the new subject with high fidelity, reporting a DINO similarity score of 0.789 on SDXL that exceeds the personalized-baseline methods it compares against.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage separation: a segmentation-driven Img2Img inpainting step rather than full-scene generation under the personalized model. The named components are a rare placeholder token chosen by scanning the CLIP vocabulary, rank-$r$ LoRA updates $W_{\text{LoRA}} = W + \alpha UV^\top$ applied only to attention weights in the U-Net, Grounding DINO + SAM to produce the segmentation mask, an exponential-decay Gaussian blur over the masked region, and reverse diffusion where the blurred region has weaker gradient cues, so the learned LoRA prior dominates inside the mask. The argument is that this isolates where the overfitted subject knowledge acts, leaving the rest of the scene generated by the untouched base model.

What would settle it

Generate a base image, segment and blur the subject region with a mask, run the Img2Img stage, and compare the final image with the base image outside the mask: if the DINO score stays high inside the mask while the background changes substantially, or if the masked-region DINO score drops below 0.789 when segmentation boxes are slightly perturbed, the central isolation claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that subject fidelity and scene composition can be decoupled in personalized text-to-image generation. Given 4-5 reference images of a new subject, the method (1) selects a rare gibberish token that the CLIP tokenizer has no strong prior for; (2) LoRA-fine-tunes only the attention layers in the SDXL U-Net so the model overfits to the subject, storing the low-rank weights separately; (3) generates a generic scene with unmodified SDXL using the class label; and (4) segments the class-labeled region with Grounded SAM, blurs it with an exponential-decay Gaussian kernel, and runs an Img2Img diffusion pass with the LoRA weights conditioned on the rare token. The paper's empirical result is a DINO cosine similarity of 0.789 between generated and reference subject regions, higher than the DreamBooth, Textual Inversion, Custom Diffusion, and Subject Diffusion baselines reported, and the claim is that this fidelity is gained without retraining or overwriting the base model's distribution.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the second-stage belief that blurring the segmented region and letting the overfitted LoRA model redraw it will put the learned subject there while leaving the rest of the picture almost untouched—a background-preservation assumption the paper does not directly measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Subject personalization becomes a modular two-step operation: scene generation and subject insertion, so a user can swap a trained LoRA into different scenes without retraining.
  • Because the base SDXL is never modified, the same pipeline should preserve the model's prompt alignment and composition roughly at baseline, which the quality-table comparison supports.
  • The reported 7-8 minute pipeline time (including fine-tuning and generation) suggests personalization can be done on modest hardware, making per-user subjects practical.
  • If the method generalizes across subjects and styles, the token scan means users no longer rely on DreamBooth-style tokens like 'sks' that carry unwanted priors in SDXL.
  • The segmentation plus blur design should constrain the subject edit spatially, which is a direct claim of the framework.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to apply the same two-stage split to multiple subjects simultaneously: one generic scene with several class labels, then one Img2Img pass per segmented region, each conditioned on its own LoRA token.
  • The separation also suggests a testable transfer claim: because stage 1 is unmodified SDXL, swapping the base generator for a different diffusion model should only require retraining the LoRA and re-running the segmentation, with no change to the isolation logic.
  • The exponential-decay blur choice could be tested against the uniform Gaussian blur on the same segmentation masks; the appendix reports a qualitative preference, so a quantitative comparison of the two blur kernels would isolate the smooth-transition effect.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Image-Alchemy, a two-stage pipeline for few-shot subject personalization of Stable Diffusion XL (SDXL). Stage 1 uses the unmodified SDXL to generate a generic scene in which the subject is replaced by its class label. Stage 2 segments the subject region with Grounded SAM, blurs that region, and applies an Img2Img diffusion step conditioned on a rare placeholder token and the LoRA-adapted attention weights, so that the learned subject identity is inserted into the masked region. The authors report a DINO similarity of 0.789 on SDXL, which they claim outperforms existing personalized text-to-image approaches, and a total pipeline runtime of about 7–8 minutes. The paper includes qualitative figures, two quantitative tables (embedding similarities and blind image quality metrics), and an appendix with token suggestions, dataset description, blurring variants, and an attempted theoretical justification for LoRA-based forgetting mitigation.

Significance. If the central claim were properly supported, the paper would offer a practically useful and computationally lightweight recipe for subject personalization: by isolating subject insertion from scene composition, the approach could sidestep catastrophic forgetting and overfitting while preserving the generative diversity of SDXL. The modular LoRA storage and fast fine-tuning are attractive engineering properties. However, the headline outperformance claim rests on a single underspecified evaluation point, the reported CLIP-I value is sharply worse than all baselines, and the appendix's 'theoretical proof' is only an asserted bound with an unspecified Lipschitz constant. The idea is reasonable as a workshop-level engineering contribution, but it is not yet established as a rigorous or reproducible empirical result.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Table 1] The main outperformance claim (DINO similarity 0.789 vs. 0.711 for Subject Diffusion) is not supported because the subject-region evaluation protocol is never defined. The text says similarities are computed 'in the subject region', but it does not specify how that region is obtained for each method. For the proposed method, the natural region is the Grounded SAM mask used in Stage 2; for Dreambooth, Textual Inversion, Custom Diffusion, and Subject Diffusion, no mask is described. If baseline DINO values are computed on full images while Ours is computed on the inpainted region, the comparison is biased, because DINO similarity on a focused subject crop can be much higher than on a full image. The table also reports no standard deviations, no number of subjects or prompts, and no per-subject breakdown, so the 0.789 versus 0.711 gap cannot be distinguished from run-to-run variability. A reproducible protocol with the same mask definition for all methods, full-image scores, and variance estimates must be provided before the headline claim can be accepted.
  2. [Table 1, CLIP-I row] The reported CLIP-I value for Ours is 0.557, far below all baselines (0.780–0.803), yet the manuscript dismisses CLIP-I because CLIP 'fails to recognize rare or unique tokens' that 'hold no meaning in its text encoder' (Section 5.1). That explanation is not applicable to CLIP-I, which is an image-image cosine similarity and does not use the text encoder. The large drop in CLIP-I therefore indicates a substantial loss of global image alignment relative to the baselines, not a metric artifact. The authors must either correct the CLIP-I evaluation or explicitly present the trade-off between subject-region fidelity and global alignment; as it stands, the statement 'outperforming existing personalized text-to-image approaches' is inconsistent with the full table.
  3. [Appendix A.4] The claimed theoretical proof that LoRA mitigates catastrophic forgetting is not a proof. The appendix states D_KL(p_{θ+Δθ}, p_θ) ≤ κ||ΔW||_F 'for some Lipschitz constant κ > 0', but no Lipschitz constant is derived, no regularity conditions on p_θ are stated, and no argument links a bound on a single attention weight matrix to the distribution shift over the full U-Net, over prompts, and over latents. The norm inequality ||αUV^T||_F ≤ α||U||_F||V||_F is elementary and does not by itself bound any divergence. The authors should either provide a rigorous bound with explicit constants and stated assumptions, or remove the 'theoretical proof' language and present the low-rank update as a heuristic motivation.
  4. [§3.4, §5] The central functional assumption—that the Img2Img stage reconstructs the subject's identity inside the blurred mask while leaving the surrounding scene untouched—is not validated. The paper reports no background-reconstruction error, no segmentation-consistency metric between the base image and the final output, and no statistic on how many pixels outside the mask change. A failure of the blur-and-inpaint mechanism would directly degrade both subject fidelity and the claimed preservation of SDXL's broader generative capabilities. The authors should include region-based evaluations that quantify changes outside the subject mask and verify that the final composition matches the intended scene.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] The token-selection procedure is described qualitatively ('visually similar or thematically consistent'), and the paper does not report how many candidate tokens were scanned, how many generations were run per token, or how the SSIM threshold was set; a short summary of this screening process would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Table 2] The image-quality comparison includes only Real Images, Unmodified SDXL, and Ours; without the baseline personalization methods (Dreambooth, Textual Inversion, Custom Diffusion, Subject Diffusion), the claim that the pipeline 'minimally impacts' scene quality is not supported by the table.
  3. [§5.1] The text says 'Higher values indicate better subject preservation' but does not state whether all metrics are monotonically better in the same direction; for example, BRISQUE is a distortion metric where lower is better, and Table 2 uses arrows inconsistently (e.g., 'NIQE ↑' but 'BRISQUE↓').
  4. [Appendix A.2] The list of proposed tokens is presented without any indication of which tokens were actually used in the experiments; specifying the token(s) per subject would allow readers to interpret the qualitative results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DINO claim is a measured evaluation and the LoRA argument is a self-contained bound, not a self-citation or fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical evaluation result: a DINO cosine similarity of 0.789 measured between generated outputs and reference images in the subject region. Nothing in the paper defines, fits, or derives this number from the method's own parameters. The token-selection procedure (Section 3.1) is an input heuristic, not a quantity used in the similarity computation. The LoRA fine-tuning (Section 3.2) is a standard low-rank adaptation, and the appendix's 'theoretical proof' (Appendix A.4) is a self-contained bound: under an explicit Lipschitz assumption, the KL divergence is bounded by a constant times the Frobenius norm of the low-rank update. That is a mathematical statement, not a circular import of the conclusion. The two-stage generation pipeline (Sections 3.3 and 3.4) is a method design, and no equation in the paper makes the predicted output equal to the training objective by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: references to DreamBooth, Textual Inversion, Grounded SAM, and LoRA are to external, independently established work. The unspecified 'subject region' protocol for the DINO metric (Section 5.1) is a reproducibility and evaluation-fairness concern, but it does not satisfy the requirement for circularity because the paper does not exhibit a specific reduction of the reported score to its own inputs or fitted parameters. The central claim is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

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

The paper's central claim depends on several unstated or unproved premises: the rare-token heuristic, the LoRA KL bound, segmentation reliability, and metric validity. The LoRA rank, denoising strength, and fine-tuning hyperparameters are free parameters that directly affect the reported scores but are not disclosed.

free parameters (5)
  • LoRA rank r
    Rank of the low-rank update is not specified; it directly controls the capacity of the learned subject and the distributional shift.
  • Img2Img denoising strength
    Strength of the image-to-image operation determines how much the blurred region is regenerated; not reported.
  • Fine-tuning hyperparameters
    Learning rate, number of steps, batch size, and loss weights are not given, though they are essential for reproducing the LoRA training.
  • Blur parameters = kernel size=151, sigma=100, lambda=5
    Used in the appendix but no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Grounding DINO threshold tau
    Threshold for detection boxes is mentioned in Section 3.3.1 but its value is not specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A rare token with low CLIP prior will map to the new subject without interfering with existing concepts.
    The paper selects tokens by visual inspection and SSIM (Section 3.1), but this heuristic does not guarantee absence of interference.
  • ad hoc to paper LoRA low-rank updates bound the distributional shift via D_KL <= kappa * ||Delta W||_F.
    Appendix A.4 asserts this bound with an unspecified Lipschitz constant kappa and no derivation; it is presented as a proof but is not one.
  • domain assumption Grounded SAM accurately localizes the class label in the base image.
    The segmentation mask drives the blur and Img2Img insertion; errors here would place the subject incorrectly.
  • domain assumption DINO similarity is a valid measure of subject fidelity for this task.
    The paper relies on DINO to claim improvement while reporting much lower CLIP-I, and does not justify why DINO is the correct metric.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IMAGE-ALCHEMY: Advancing subject fidelity in personalised text-to-image generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2IVZ7NDV

@misc{pith2026250510743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IMAGE-ALCHEMY: Advancing subject fidelity in personalised text-to-image generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2IVZ7NDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10743}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in text-to-image diffusion models, particularly Stable Diffusion, have enabled the generation of highly detailed and semantically rich images. However, personalizing these models to represent novel subjects based on a few reference images remains challenging. This often leads to catastrophic forgetting, overfitting, or large computational overhead.We propose a two-stage pipeline that addresses these limitations by leveraging LoRA-based fine-tuning on the attention weights within the U-Net of the Stable Diffusion XL (SDXL) model. First, we use the unmodified SDXL to generate a generic scene by replacing the subject with its class label. Then, we selectively insert the personalized subject through a segmentation-driven image-to-image (Img2Img) pipeline that uses the trained LoRA weights.This framework isolates the subject encoding from the overall composition, thus preserving SDXL's broader generative capabilities while integrating the new subject in a high-fidelity manner. Our method achieves a DINO similarity score of 0.789 on SDXL, outperforming existing personalized text-to-image approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10743 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image-Alchemy : Illustration of personalized generation for the subject “iklan”, the token [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall Pipeline of Image-Alchemy conventional usage 2 . For each candidate token, we perform multiple text-to-image generations using the unmodified SDXL under different random seeds. We then inspect the resulting images: • If the token consistently yields visually similar or thematically consistent outputs, it sug￾gests the model associates it with an existing concept. • If the token leads to highly varied or inco… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of our Img2Img pipeline. The base image is first segmented and blurred (left), then encoded into the latent space. The learned LoRA token (e.g., “immen”) is combined with the prompt and fed to the U-Net for iterative refinement, after which the decoder produces the final, personalized image (right). 3.4.2 COMPOSITION AND STYLE PRESERVATION Isolating the subject-insertion step after a generic image has a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Column 1 has the prompts used to generate the images, Column 2 portrays the images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Seamless Subject Integration. Row 1 displays a combination of bear and cat images, merging their characteristics while preserving the overall quality and context.Row 2 presents images of various women, each integrated smoothly while keeping their unique identities.Row …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An instance from the datasets used to fine tune Stable Diffusion XL model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [4]

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/1810.04805. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszko- reit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    arXiv

  2. [5]

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patashnik, Amit H

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11929. Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patashnik, Amit H. Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion,

    arXiv 2010

  3. [9]

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685. Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative ad- versarial networks. In 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 4396–4405,

    arXiv 2019

  4. [10]

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00453. Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Ana- lyzing and improving the image quality of stylegan. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 8107–8116,

    arXiv 2019

  5. [11]

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR42600.2020. 00813. Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Samuli Laine, Erik H ¨ark¨onen, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Alias-free generative adversarial networks,

    arXiv 2020

  6. [12]

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2106.12423. Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick. Segment anything,

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    Nupur Kumari, Bingliang Zhang, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, and Jun-Yan Zhu

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02643. Nupur Kumari, Bingliang Zhang, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion,

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    9 Published as a workshop paper at DeLTa Workshop (ICLR

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2103.14030. 9 Published as a workshop paper at DeLTa Workshop (ICLR

    arXiv

Show all 35 references
  1. [15]

    Anish Mittal, Anush Krishna Moorthy, and Alan Conrad Bovik

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05125. Anish Mittal, Anush Krishna Moorthy, and Alan Conrad Bovik. No-reference image quality assess- ment in the spatial domain. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 21(12):4695–4708,

    arXiv

  2. [18]

    Yotam Nitzan, Kfir Aberman, Qiurui He, Orly Liba, Michal Yarom, Yossi Gandelsman, Inbar Mosseri, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-or

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.09672. Yotam Nitzan, Kfir Aberman, Qiurui He, Orly Liba, Michal Yarom, Yossi Gandelsman, Inbar Mosseri, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-or. Mystyle: A personalized generative prior,

    arXiv

  3. [19]

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17272. Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis,

    arXiv

  4. [20]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01952. Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agar- wal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural la...

    arXiv

  5. [21]

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea V oss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020. Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea V oss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Zero-shot text-to-image generation,

    arXiv

  6. [22]

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2102.12092. Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text- conditional image generation with clip latents,

    arXiv

  7. [23]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2204.06125. Tianhe Ren, Shilong Liu, Ailing Zeng, Jing Lin, Kunchang Li, He Cao, Jiayu Chen, Xinyu Huang, Yukang Chen, Feng Yan, Zhaoyang Zeng, Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Jie Yang, Hongyang Li, Qing Jiang, and Lei Zhang. Grounded sam: Assembling open-world ...

    arXiv

  8. [25]

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2112.10752. Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedi- cal image segmentation,

    arXiv

  9. [27]

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Wei Wei, Tingbo Hou, Yael Pritch, Neal Wadhwa, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.12242. Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Wei Wei, Tingbo Hou, Yael Pritch, Neal Wadhwa, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Hyperdreambooth: Hypernetworks for fast personaliza- tion of text-to-image models,

    arXiv

  10. [28]

    Chitwan Saharia, Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Tim Salimans, David J

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06949. Chitwan Saharia, Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Tim Salimans, David J. Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Image super-resolution via iterative refinement,

    arXiv

  11. [29]

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Huiwen Chang, Chris A

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2104.07636. Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Huiwen Chang, Chris A. Lee, Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, David J. Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Palette: Image-to-image diffusion models, 2022a. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2111.05826. 10 Published as a workshop ...

    arXiv

  12. [31]

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03411. Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A. Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsuper- vised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics,

    arXiv

  13. [32]

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/1503.03585. Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    arXiv

  14. [33]

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02502. Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution, 2020a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05600. Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Improved techniques for training score-based generative models, 20...

    2010 arXiv

  15. [34]

    Shiwen Zhang, Shuai Xiao, and Weilin Huang

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2404.14007. Shiwen Zhang, Shuai Xiao, and Weilin Huang. Forgedit: Text guided image editing via learning and forgetting,

    arXiv

  16. [35]

    A A PPENDIX A.1 B LURRING TECHNIQUES We integrated selective blurring of the main object in the base image before passing it to the img-to- img SDXL pipeline

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10556. A A PPENDIX A.1 B LURRING TECHNIQUES We integrated selective blurring of the main object in the base image before passing it to the img-to- img SDXL pipeline. This step was designed to enhance the quality of edits by focusing modifications...

    arXiv

  17. [2012]

    completely blind

    doi: 10.1109/TIP.2012.2214050. Anish Mittal, Rajiv Soundararajan, and Alan C. Bovik. Making a “completely blind” image qual- ity analyzer. IEEE Signal Processing Letters , 20(3):209–212,

    2012

  18. [2013]

    doi: 10.1109/LSP.2012. 2227726. Alex Nichol and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    2012 doi

  19. [2014]

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1406.2661. Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    arXiv

  20. [2015]

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04597. Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation,

    arXiv

  21. [2019]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.11096. Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A. Efros. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions,

    arXiv

  22. [2020]

    Edward J

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239. Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    2006 arXiv

  23. [2021]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2104.14294. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    arXiv

  24. [2022]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01618. Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks,

    arXiv

  25. [2023]

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J ´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09800. Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J ´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers,

    arXiv

  26. [2024]

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14159. Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    arXiv

  27. [2025]

    Sara Mahdavi, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Tim Sal- imans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily Denton, Seyed Kam- yar Seyed Ghasemipour, Burcu Karagol Ayan, S. Sara Mahdavi, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Tim Sal- imans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Photorealistic text-to-image dif- fusi...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.