Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

LLMControl: Grounded Control of Text-to-Image Diffusion-based Synthesis with Multimodal LLMs

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LLMControl's central claim is that a multimodal-LLM planner plus polygon masks and SVD-based structure injection gives a single training-light framework stronger text-image alignment and broader condition support than per-condition…

desk verdict A plausible LLM-layout-to-image system with a genuinely useful polygon representation, but the quantitative evidence is currently not trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19939 v1 pith:YCN57ZGT submitted 2025-07-26 cs.CV

Jiaze Wang , Rui Chen , Haowang Cui This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords text-to-imagegenerationdiffusionmodelsmultimodalLLMplanningspatialcontrollayoutgroundingmaskedcross-attentionSVDfeatureinjectioncontrollable
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

LLMControl is an attempt to make text-to-image diffusion models follow both a text prompt and an arbitrary spatial image condition, such as depth, sketch, or edge maps, without training a new adapter for each condition type. The paper argues that a multimodal LLM can act as a global planner, splitting a complex prompt into per-object polygon layouts and appearance captions; masked cross-attention then binds each caption to its region, while SVD-based feature injection transfers the structure of the conditioning image into the denoising process. The claimed payoff is that one frozen-backbone framework stays competitive in image quality with state-of-the-art methods while reaching the highest image-text alignment scores in the paper's comparisons, including CLIP 0.3222 on MS-COCO and top CLIP scores across five spatial-condition types. If true, this makes controllable generation cheaper to deploy and more faithful on multi-object, spatially complex prompts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the 'Path Clip' visual primitive: each object is represented by a CSS-style polygon, meaning a text string that lists the polygon's corner coordinates, together with a center, width, height, and a natural-language appearance description, with the number of polygon vertices fixed between 4 and 6. The paper encodes path parameters with Fourier features and appearance text with the CLIP text encoder, concatenates the two per object, and feeds them through an MLP into the cross-attention layers of a pretrained diffusion model. Masked cross-attention forces each primitive to attend only inside its polygon region. Structure is handled separately: DDIM sampling produces an appearance reference image, DDIM inversion of the conditioning image gives diffusion features, and singular value decomposition of these feature matrices yields a semantic basis; structure coordinates obtained by projecting the inversion features are injected through guidance energies that compare the target and reference within and outside masked regions, with an appearance guidance term to suppress leakage.

What would settle it

Run Grounding-DINO over LLMControl outputs on prompts containing three or more objects with known positions and compute the layout precision, recall, and accuracy that Section 5.1 says are measured; if those numbers are no better than the rectangular-layout baselines on such prompts, the claim that polygon masks ground the generation is not supported. A second check is to test a prompt where the MLLM must lay out an object with a sharp or highly curved silhouette and see whether the 4-to-6 vertex polygon cap produces visible shape distortion like the seabird-beak failure the authors mention.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that layout, structure, and appearance can be controlled hierarchically by a single framework built on frozen pretrained components, and that such hierarchical control resolves the trade-off that per-condition adapters like ControlNet face by letting image conditions override text. The paper states that LLMControl achieves synthesis quality competitive with state-of-the-art models while providing stronger image-text alignment and handling challenging inputs on which most existing methods fail. On MS-COCO it reports FID 8.44 and CLIP 0.3222, the best CLIP score among the compared methods, and in Table 2 it reports the highest CLIP scores on depth, HED, normal, sketch, and Canny conditions, using the same pipeline for all modalities. The authors also claim that the polygon layout representation, masked cross-attention, and SVD-based structure injection are responsible for this behavior, supported by ablations in which removing the mask or the embedding concatenation lowers both alignment and quality and direct feature injection causes appearance leakage.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the multimodal LLM can reliably turn an arbitrary user prompt into correct per-object layouts, each drawn with only four to six polygon corners, plus accurate appearance captions, so that the masked cross-attention actually places every object where the planner said to put it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One trained pipeline accepts depth, HED, normal, sketch, and Canny conditions without per-condition adapters, so adding a new control modality costs no extra training.
  • Complex prompts with several objects are decomposed into per-object polygons, which should reduce object omission and attribute confusion that bounding-box and full-image-adapter methods show.
  • Stronger CLIP alignment on MS-COCO and condition benchmarks means generated images track the user's textual intent more closely at matched image quality.
  • The framework is compatible with different pretrained T2I models and MLLMs, so controllability can ride on upgrades to either backbone without retraining the whole stack.
  • The ablations imply that masked cross-attention is the main driver of layout adherence, and that concatenating location and appearance embeddings improves both alignment and quality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the MLLM is used only at planning time, a natural extension the paper leaves implicit is replacing the frozen planner with a lighter or open-weights model as long as it can emit the same CSS-style paths; the rest of the pipeline should be unaffected.
  • The fixed vertex count between 4 and 6 is the limiting factor for sharp objects, as the paper itself notes with the seabird-beak distortion, so an adaptive vertex count chosen per instance would be a direct testable extension.
  • A direct verification the paper leaves for future work is to report the Grounding-DINO layout precision, recall, and accuracy on multi-object prompts, since Section 5.1 says these are measured but does not give the numbers.
  • The structure guidance relies on an extra DDIM inversion pass, so a faster inversion scheme or a distilled SVD basis would be the natural efficiency extension.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LLMControl, a framework for controllable text-to-image generation that uses a multimodal LLM (GPT-3.5/GPT-4) to decompose complex prompts into per-object polygon layouts and appearance descriptions. These visual primitives are injected into a pre-trained Stable Diffusion model via masked cross-attention, and the generation process is further guided by structure and appearance guidance derived from DDIM inversion and SVD of self-attention features. The paper claims competitive synthesis quality on MS-COCO (FID 8.44, CLIP 0.3222) and the highest CLIP scores across five spatial conditions (depth, HED, normal, sketch, Canny), as well as better layout adherence than GLIGEN.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the approach would be a valuable training-light alternative to per-condition adapters such as ControlNet, offering a unified representation for diverse control signals. The proposed Path Clip representation and the use of an MLLM as a global controller are interesting ideas. However, the paper's own quantitative evidence is incomplete and in places erroneous, so the significance of the contribution cannot currently be assessed. The absence of released code, data, or checkpoints further limits verification.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 2] The authors' row for "ours" contains the literal text "Canny" in the Canny column rather than a numeric CLIP score. Consequently, the claim that LLMControl achieves the highest CLIP scores on all five spatial condition types is unsupported; one of the five comparisons is missing and must be supplied.
  2. [Section 5.1, Evaluation metrics] The paper states that layout precision, recall, and accuracy are computed using Grounding-DINO, but these metrics are never reported anywhere in the manuscript. These are the only direct measurements of the correctness of the Path Clip polygon decomposition and masked cross-attention, which are load-bearing components of the method. Without these numbers, the CLIP improvements cannot be attributed to the proposed layout mechanism rather than to appearance guidance or generic image-text alignment.
  3. [Section 5.1, Experiment setup] The spatial-condition comparison is performed on only 30 images from ImageNet-R-TI2I with no error bars, seeds, or significance tests. Reported CLIP advantages over FreeControl are about 0.01–0.02, which is within the range expected from sampling noise on such a small dataset. This evidence does not support the claim of consistent superiority over the baselines.
  4. [Section 5.1, Hyperparameters] The structure guidance strength λ_s is reported as a range (400, 1000] with λ_a = 0.2λ_s, but no selection protocol or grid search is described. Without fixed values or a stated tuning procedure, the comparisons in Table 2 may reflect per-example hyperparameter optimization, which would invalidate a fair comparison with FreeControl and other methods.
  5. [Table 3] The column header "CLIP↓" indicates lower is better, but CLIP score is a similarity measure where higher is better, as correctly stated in Section 5.1. The table's direction is inconsistent with the method description, and the reported numbers (e.g., w/o mask CLIP 0.2911 vs. ours 0.3222) need to be reinterpreted with the correct direction; the ablation conclusions must be restated accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract ends with an incomplete sentence ("It is noteworthy that LLM_Control allows the challenging input conditions on which most of the existing methods"); this appears to be a truncation error.
  2. [Introduction] There are duplicate section headings "1. Introduction" and "2. Introduction" in the manuscript.
  3. [References] The reference list contains malformed author names (e.g., "V oynov Andrey" instead of Andrey Voynov, "Ho Jonathan" instead of Jonathan Ho) and inconsistent formatting; references [4] and [13] appear incomplete.
  4. [Eq. (3)] In the masked cross-attention equation, the mask M_i is applied to the attended output; it would be clearer to specify whether the mask is applied to the attention weights before softmax or to the weighted sum, and to define the dimensions of all quantities.
  5. [Section 5.1] The sentence "we use the value of keys from the first self-attention of the U-Net decoder as a diffusion feature" is ambiguous; it is unclear whether keys, values, or both are used, and how the SVD is performed on the resulting feature matrix. More detail would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical system paper with no derivation step that reduces to its inputs, no self-citation chain, and no equation-level equivalence between any guidance term and the evaluation metric.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a first-principles derivation; it proposes a system whose components are externally cited (ControlNet, GLIGEN, FreeControl, LayoutGPT) and evaluated on MS-COCO and ImageNet-R-TI2I. There are no self-citations by the authors in the reference list, so the self-citation load-bearing and uniqueness-imported-from-authors patterns do not apply. The only possible circularity signal is the appearance guidance in Eq. (5), which minimizes diffusion-feature distance between the final image I and a text-conditioned reference generation Ia, while the headline evaluation metric is CLIP image-text alignment. This is a soft optimization overlap, not a construction-level reduction: g_a operates on time-dependent diffusion features rather than the CLIP embedding, and the same Stable Diffusion backbone (which already uses CLIP text embeddings) underlies every compared method. It therefore does not make the CLIP result true by definition. The manuscript's own limitations (vertex count choice, expensive DDIM inversion) are stated rather than hidden. The promised layout precision/recall/accuracy numbers are absent and Table 2's 'Canny' cell is not a score; these are verification and completeness gaps, not circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on six hand-chosen hyperparameters, five domain assumptions about what diffusion features encode and what the MLLM can plan, and no independent empirical check of the layout decomposition. The most consequential elements are the MLLM layout-parsing assumption and the SVD structure-appearance separation, both borrowed in spirit from cited works (LayoutGPT, FreeControl) but unverified here. The Path Clip polygon format is a representation, not an invented entity, so no entity entries are logged.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_s (structure guidance strength) = 400 to 1000
    Hand-selected guidance weight; reported as a wide range with no sensitivity analysis, suggesting per-example tuning. Appears in Eq. (9); given in Section 5.1.
  • lambda_a (appearance guidance strength) = 0.2 * lambda_s
    Fixed ratio chosen by hand, no ablation across ratios. Section 5.1.
  • N_a (appearance guidance averaging count) = 2
    Number of weighted spatial averages in Eq. (5); set by hand without ablation.
  • polygon vertex count k = 4 to 6
    PSO polygon fitting uses k between 4 and 6; the Limitations section admits the optimal vertex count is unresolved.
  • DDIM steps and inversion steps = 200 sampling, 1000 inversion
    Chosen without justification; inversion with more steps than sampling is unusual and not ablated. Section 5.1.
  • guidance application window = first 120 of 200 steps
    Hand-chosen; structure and appearance guidance applied for the first 120 steps only, no ablation reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Self-attention keys/values from the first U-Net decoder layer encode image structure and preserve layout and shape details.
    Invoked in Section 4.3 to justify choosing this layer for structure injection; asserted, not derived, and inherited from FreeControl-style feature analysis.
  • domain assumption The singular vectors with the largest singular values of diffusion features are strongly correlated with object pose and shape.
    Section 4.3, paragraph 'SVD on Diffusion Features'; this separation of structure from appearance is assumed and underlies the whole structure-guidance design.
  • domain assumption The MLLM planner decomposes arbitrary prompts into correct per-object polygon layouts and appearance descriptions.
    Section 4.1 and Planning Stage (Figure 2); this is the load-bearing premise of the method and is never quantitatively validated (promised precision/recall/accuracy are absent).
  • domain assumption DDIM inversion on the condition image yields features whose projection onto the semantic basis captures structure without leaking appearance.
    Section 4.3, 'Guidance of the generation'; appearance leakage is acknowledged as a risk and claimed to be mitigated by SVD, but this is asserted from two qualitative ablation rows, not measured.
  • domain assumption CLIP text embeddings of appearance descriptions, concatenated with Fourier-encoded path parameters, bind object attributes when injected through cross-attention.
    Section 4.2, Eq. (1); the paper claims this binding prevents object loss or overlap, but the supporting evidence is the single w/o-concatenation ablation row (FID 8.56, CLIP 0.3011).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLMControl: Grounded Control of Text-to-Image Diffusion-based Synthesis with Multimodal LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCN57ZGT

@misc{pith2026250719939,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLMControl: Grounded Control of Text-to-Image Diffusion-based Synthesis with Multimodal LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCN57ZGT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19939}
}
read the original abstract

Recent spatial control methods for text-to-image (T2I) diffusion models have shown compelling results. However, these methods still fail to precisely follow the control conditions and generate the corresponding images, especially when encountering the textual prompts that contain multiple objects or have complex spatial compositions. In this work, we present a LLM-guided framework called LLM\_Control to address the challenges of the controllable T2I generation task. By improving grounding capabilities, LLM\_Control is introduced to accurately modulate the pre-trained diffusion models, where visual conditions and textual prompts influence the structures and appearance generation in a complementary way. We utilize the multimodal LLM as a global controller to arrange spatial layouts, augment semantic descriptions and bind object attributes. The obtained control signals are injected into the denoising network to refocus and enhance attention maps according to novel sampling constraints. Extensive qualitative and quantitative experiments have demonstrated that LLM\_Control achieves competitive synthesis quality compared to other state-of-the-art methods across various pre-trained T2I models. It is noteworthy that LLM\_Control allows the challenging input conditions on which most of the existing methods

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19939 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The figure shows the results generated by our method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The figure shows the architecture of our approach. Our method consists of three stages. Firstly, we utilize MLLM planning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The figure shows the template construction. Specifically, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The figure shows how our method compares with other methods in terms of controllability. Inputting the same spatial image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The images show our method with another layout based generation method GLIGEN. The first row shows our generated imageS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. EventOD: Event-Aware OD Flow Generation via LLM-Guided Semantic Modulation

    cs.AI 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    EventOD adapts frozen OD generators to disruptive events by modulating inputs with LLM-derived semantic direction vectors and learned magnitude factors, improving hurricane and pandemic flow reconstruction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Diffit: Diffusion vision transformers for im- age generation

    Hatamizadeh Ali, Jiaming Song, Guilin Liu, Jan Kautz, and Arash Vahdat. Diffit: Diffusion vision transformers for im- age generation. In ECCV, pages 11472–11481, 2025. 1, 3

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Sketch-guided text-to-image diffusion models

    V oynov Andrey, Kfir Aberman, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Sketch-guided text-to-image diffusion models. pages 1–11,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Brown Tom B. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 2020. 3

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Emergent abilities of large language models

    Brown Tom B. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Llama: open and efficient foundation lan- guage models

    Brown Tom B. Llama: open and efficient foundation lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Instruction tuning with gpt-4

    Peng Baolin, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277, 2023. 2

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Unicontrol: A uni- fied diffusion model for controllable visual generation in the wild

    Qin Can, Shu Zhang, Ning Yu, Yihao Feng, Xinyi Yang, Yingbo Zhou, and Huan Wang et al. Unicontrol: A uni- fied diffusion model for controllable visual generation in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11147, 2023. 1, 3

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    T2i-adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models

    Mou Chong, Xintao Wang, Liangbin Xie, Yanze Wu, Jian Zhang, Zhongang Qi, and Ying Shan. T2i-adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models. In AAAI, pages 4296–4304, 2024. 1, 3

    work page 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Migc: Multi-instance generation controller for text-to-image synthesis

    Zhou Dewei, You Li, Fan Ma, Xiaoting Zhang, and Yi Yang. Migc: Multi-instance generation controller for text-to-image synthesis. In CVPR, pages 6818–6828, 2024. 2

    2024

  2. [10]

    Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models

    Zhu Deyao, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mo- hamed Elhoseiny. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. 2023. 2

    2023

  3. [11]

    Cogview: Mastering text-to-image generation via transformers

    Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Wenyi Hong, Wendi Zheng, Chang Zhou, Da Yin, and Junyang Lin et al. Cogview: Mastering text-to-image generation via transformers. pages 19822–19835, 2021. 3

    2021

  4. [12]

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

    Podell Dustin, 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. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Freeman, Fr ´edo Durand, and Song Han

    Xiao Guangxuan, Tianwei Yin, William T. Freeman, Fr ´edo Durand, and Song Han. onathan ho, ajay jain, and pieter abbeel. 2020. 1, 3

    2020

  6. [14]

    Freeman, Fr ´edo Durand, and Song Han

    Xiao Guangxuan, Tianwei Yin, William T. Freeman, Fr ´edo Durand, and Song Han. Fastcomposer: Tuning-free multi- subject image generation with localized attention. In IJCV, pages 1–20, 2024. 1, 3 8

    2024

  7. [15]

    Cross-modal contrastive learning for text-to- image generation

    Zhang Han, Jing Yu Koh, Jason Baldridge, Honglak Lee, and Yinfei Yang. Cross-modal contrastive learning for text-to- image generation. In CVPR, pages 833–842, 2021. 3

    2021

  8. [16]

    Ip- adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to- image diffusion models

    Ye Hu, Jun Zhang, Sibo Liu, Xiao Han, and Wei Yang. Ip- adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to- image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06721,

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chang Huiwen, Han Zhang, Jarred Barber, A. J. Maschinot, Jose Lezama, Lu Jiang, and Ming-Hsuan Yang et al. Muse: Text-to-image generation via masked generative transform- ers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.0070, 2023. 3

    2023

  10. [18]

    Scaling autoregressive models for content-rich text-to-image genera- tion

    Yu Jiahui, Yuanzhong Xu, Jing Yu Koh, Thang Luong, Gun- jan Baid, Zirui Wang, and Vijay Vasudevan et al. Scaling autoregressive models for content-rich text-to-image genera- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.1078, 2022. 3

    2022

  11. [19]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Song Jiaming, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 2, 3, 5

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Open-vocabulary panop- tic segmentation with text-to-image diffusion models

    Xu Jiarui, Sifei Liu, Arash Vahdat, Wonmin Byeon, Xiao- long Wang, and Shalini De Mello. Open-vocabulary panop- tic segmentation with text-to-image diffusion models. In CVPR, pages 2955–2966, 2023. 6

    2023

  13. [21]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Ho Jonathan and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 5

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Perception priori- tized training of diffusion models

    Choi Jooyoung, Jungbeom Lee, Chaehun Shin, Sungwon Kim, Hyunwoo Kim, and Sungroh Yoon. Perception priori- tized training of diffusion models. In CVPR, pages 11472– 11481, 2022. 1

    2022

  15. [23]

    Training compute-optimal large language models

    Hoffmann Jordan, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, and Diego de Las Casas et al. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Achiam Josh, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, and Diogo Almeida et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for uni- fied vision-language understanding and generation

    Li Junnan, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for uni- fied vision-language understanding and generation. pages 12888–12900, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Li Junnan, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. pages 19730–19742, 2023. 2

    2023

  19. [27]

    Composer: Creative and controllable im- age synthesis with composable conditions

    Huang Lianghua, Di Chen, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Jingren Zhou. Composer: Creative and controllable im- age synthesis with composable conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09778, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    ”llm- grounded diffusion: Enhancing prompt understanding of text-to-image diffusion models with large language models

    Lian Long, Boyi Li, Adam Yala, and Trevor Darrell. ”llm- grounded diffusion: Enhancing prompt understanding of text-to-image diffusion models with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13655, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Zhang Lvmin, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In ICCV, pages 3836–3847, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  22. [30]

    Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimen- sional domains

    Tancik Matthew, Pratul Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Sara Fridovich-Keil, Nithin Raghavan, Utkarsh Singhal, Ravi Ra- mamoorthi, Jonathan Barron, and Ren Ng. Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimen- sional domains. pages 7537–7547, 2020. 4

    2020

  23. [31]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Ruiz Nataniel, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. In CVPR, pages 22500–22510, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  24. [32]

    Hyperdreambooth: Hypernetworks for fast personalization of text-to-image models

    Ruiz Nataniel, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Wei Wei, Tingbo Hou, Yael Pritch, Neal Wadhwa, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Hyperdreambooth: Hypernetworks for fast personalization of text-to-image models. InCVPR, pages 6527–6536, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  25. [33]

    Spatext: Spatio-textual representation for con- trollable image generation

    Avrahami Omri, Thomas Hayes, Oran Gafni, Sonal Gupta, Yaniv Taigman, Devi Parikh, Dani Lischinski, Ohad Fried, and Xi Yin. Spatext: Spatio-textual representation for con- trollable image generation. In CVPR, pages 18370–18380,

  26. [34]

    Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthe- sis

    Esser Patrick, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim En- tezari, Jonas M¨uller, Harry Saini, and Yam Levi et al. Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthe- sis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03206, 2024. 1, 3

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Dhariwal Prafulla and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. pages 8780–8794, 2021. 3

    2021

  28. [36]

    Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen- Or

    Gal Rinon, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patash- nik, Amit H. Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen- Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Rombach Robin, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR, pages 10684– 10695, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  30. [38]

    Generative ad- versarial text to image synthesis

    Reed Scott, Zeynep Akata, Xinchen Yan, Lajanugen Lo- geswaran, Bernt Schiele, and Honglak Lee. Generative ad- versarial text to image synthesis. pages 1060–1069, 2016. 3

    2016

  31. [39]

    Younes Mirinezhad

    Mousavi Seyed, Muhammad Hossein, Lyashenko Vyach- eslav Victorovich, Atiye Ilanloo, and S. Younes Mirinezhad. Fatty liver level recognition using particle swarm optimiza- tion (pso) image segmentation and analysis. pages 237–245,

  32. [40]

    Zhao Shihao, Dongdong Chen, Yen-Chun Chen, Jianmin Bao, Shaozhe Hao, Lu Yuan, and Kwan-Yee K. Wong. Uni-controlnet: All-in-one control to text-to-image diffusion models. 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  33. [41]

    Grounding dino: Mar- rying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object de- tection

    Liu Shilong, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, and Jie Yang Qing Jiang et al. Grounding dino: Mar- rying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object de- tection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05499, 2023. 7

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Freecontrol: Training-free spatial control of any text-to-image diffusion model with any condition

    Mo Sicheng, Fangzhou Mu, Kuan Heng Lin, Yanli Liu, Bochen Guan, Yin Li, and Bolei Zhou. Freecontrol: Training-free spatial control of any text-to-image diffusion model with any condition. In CVPR, pages 7465–7475,

  35. [43]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. 2015. 1, 3

    2015

  36. [44]

    Score-based 9 generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based 9 generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. In ICLR, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  37. [45]

    It’s all about your sketch: Democratising sketch control in diffusion models

    Koley Subhadeep, Ayan Kumar Bhunia, Deeptanshu Sekhri, Aneeshan Sain, Pinaki Nath Chowdhury, Tao Xiang, and Yi- Zhe Song. It’s all about your sketch: Democratising sketch control in diffusion models. In CVPR, pages 7204–7214,

  38. [46]

    Attngan: Fine- grained text to image generation with attentional generative adversarial networks

    Xu Tao, Pengchuan Zhang, Qiuyuan Huang, Han Zhang, Zhe Gan, Xiaolei Huang, and Xiaodong He. Attngan: Fine- grained text to image generation with attentional generative adversarial networks. pages 1316–1324, 2018. 3

    2018

  39. [47]

    Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation

    Tumanyan, Narek, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. In CVPR, pages 1921–1930,

    1921

  40. [48]

    Compositional text-to-image generation with dense blob representations

    Nie Weili, Sifei Liu, Morteza Mardani, Chao Liu, Benjamin Eckart, and Arash Vahdat. Compositional text-to-image generation with dense blob representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08246, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Layoutgpt: Compositional visual plan- ning and generation with large language models

    Feng Weixi, Wanrong Zhu, Tsu jui Fu, Varun Jampani, Ar- jun Akula, Xuehai He, Sugato Basu, Xin Eric Wang, and William Yang Wang. Layoutgpt: Compositional visual plan- ning and generation with large language models. 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024

  42. [50]

    Ella: Equip diffusion models with llm for enhanced semantic alignment

    Hu Xiwei, Rui Wang, Yixiao Fang, Bin Fu, Pei Cheng, and Gang Yu. Ella: Equip diffusion models with llm for enhanced semantic alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05135, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

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

    Ju Xuan, Ailing Zeng, Chenchen Zhao, Jianan Wang, Lei Zhang, and Qiang Xu. Humansd: A native skeleton-guided diffusion model for human image generation. InICCV, pages 15988–15998, 2023. 1

    2023

  44. [52]

    ediff- i: Text-to-image diffusion models with an ensemble of expert denoisers

    Balaji Yoges, Seungjun Nah, Xun Huang, Arash Vahdat, Ji- aming Song, Qinsheng Zhang, and Karsten Kreis et al. ediff- i: Text-to-image diffusion models with an ensemble of expert denoisers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01324, 2022. 1

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Lafite2: Few-shot text-to-image generation

    Zhou Yufan, Chunyuan Li, Changyou Chen, Jianfeng Gao, and Jinhui Xu. Lafite2: Few-shot text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14124, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation

    Li Yuheng, Haotian Liu, Qingyang Wu, Fangzhou Mu, Jian- wei Yang, Jianfeng Gao, Chunyuan Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation. In CVPR, pages 22511–22521, 2023. 1, 2, 7

    2023

  47. [55]

    Ranni: Taming text-to-image diffusion for accurate instruction following

    Feng Yutong, Biao Gong, Di Chen, Yujun Shen, Yu Liu, and Jingren Zhou. Ranni: Taming text-to-image diffusion for accurate instruction following. In CVPR, pages 4744–4753,

  48. [56]

    Smartedit: Ex- ploring complex instruction-based image editing with multi- modal large language models

    Huang Yuzhou, Liangbin Xie, Xintao Wang, Ziyang Yuan, Xiaodong Cun, Yixiao Ge, and Jiantao Zhou. Smartedit: Ex- ploring complex instruction-based image editing with multi- modal large language models. In CVPR, pages 8362–8371,

  49. [57]

    Layoutdiffusion: Controllable diffu- sion model for layout-to-image generation

    Guangcong Zheng, Xianpan Zhou, Xuewei Li, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, and Xi Li. Layoutdiffusion: Controllable diffu- sion model for layout-to-image generation. In CVPR, page 22490–22499, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  50. [58]

    Reco: Region- controlled text-to-image generation

    Yang Zhengyuan, Jianfeng Wang, Zhe Gan, Linjie Li, Kevin Lin, Chenfei Wu, and Nan Duan et al. Reco: Region- controlled text-to-image generation. In CVPR, pages 14246– 14255, 2023. 3 10

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.