Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Understanding Trade offs When Conditioning Synthetic Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The paper claims that conditioning diversity—not the conditioning type—decides whether synthetic data helps: prompt-only wins with scarce cues, but layout-plus-prompt data drawn from a diverse real-image pool improves few-shot detector…

desk verdict The prompt-vs-layout crossover is a real, useful finding; the 34%/177% headline is confounded by a missing donor-pool pseudo-label control. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02217 v1 pith:56BQLNKR submitted 2025-07-03 cs.CV cs.AI

Brandon Trabucco , Qasim Wani , Benjamin Pikus , Vasu Sharma This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords syntheticdataobjectdetectionfew-shotlearningdiffusionmodelslayoutconditioningpromptControlNetaugmentation
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 asks when diffusion-generated synthetic images actually help train object detectors, and which way of steering the generator matters more. Across 80 visual concepts from four detection benchmarks, with just 32 to 512 real training examples, the authors find that the best conditioning strategy depends on how diverse the conditioning cues are: with only a few donor images, plain text prompts beat prompts plus layouts, but as prompts and canny-edge layouts are drawn from a larger pool of real images, layout-conditioned synthetic data overtakes prompts and improves mean average precision by 34% on average and up to 177% compared with real data alone. The point of the study is to map that trade-off, because it tells practitioners whether to invest in layout and control pipelines or simple prompt pipelines when building synthetic training data for vision tasks.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-stage synthetic-data pipeline whose independent variable is condition diversity. Prompt conditions are captions produced by a vision-language model from real images; layout conditions are canny edge maps, which trace object boundaries, extracted from the same images and injected into the SDXL diffusion model through a ControlNet adapter, with classifier-free guidance fusing both cues. A diversity-scale sweep expands the pool of real donor images used to extract conditions, from the few-shot seed set up to unique conditions for every synthetic image. Labels are assigned by an open-vocabulary detector, and downstream detection models are trained on mixed real and synthetic batches with a fixed mixing ratio, so the only thing changing across experiments is how faithful the conditions are to the real distribution.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to remove the held-out donor pool, drawing all prompts and canny edge maps from the same few-shot images used for training while varying only layout faithfulness, and then compare mAP against the prompt-only baseline; if the gains disappear or reverse, the claim that diversity of conditions is the key factor collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that condition diversity, not the type of condition by itself, determines whether synthetic data helps detection. When conditioning cues are narrow, prompt conditioning yields higher-quality synthetic data; as cues become more diverse and faithful to the real data distribution, layout conditioning becomes superior. In the most favorable regime, where prompts and canny edge maps are extracted from a held-out pool of real images matching the full training distribution, layout-plus-prompt synthetic data raises mAP by an average of 34% and up to 177% relative to using real data alone, and by 84% at 32 real examples per class. The paper interprets this as evidence that labels-first generation, simulated by conditioning on real layouts, will overtake image-first generation as the ability to model the data distribution improves.

Load-bearing premise

The headline gains assume there is a pool of real target-distribution images, separate from the few-shot training set, from which prompts and edge maps can be drawn; if such a donor pool is unavailable, the advantage of layout-conditioned synthetic data is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When conditions faithfully match the target distribution, layout-plus-prompt synthetic data beats real data alone in almost every setting tested, with the largest relative gains in the most data-starved regime.
  • The crossover between methods implies a practical guideline: teams with only a handful of real images should use prompt-only conditioning today, while teams that can assemble a larger pool of real conditions should move to layout-conditioned generation.
  • Synthetic data gains concentrate on hard classes: across difficulty strata on ImageNet, gains grow from +13% average precision for easy classes to +50% for hard classes, so rare or difficult features are where synthetic data pays off.
  • Diverse conditioning also changes scaling behavior: detectors trained with synthetic data keep improving up to a larger model size than real-data-only training, which starts overfitting earlier, and mAP keeps rising up to ten synthetic examples per real image.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the headline 34% and 177% gains are not purely about conditioning, because the diverse-condition runs draw prompts and edge maps from a held-out pool of real images that the real-data-only baseline never sees; in a true few-shot deployment without such a donor pool, the gains should be expected to be smaller.
  • Editorial inference: the crossover from prompt-only to layout conditioning suggests a testable scaling law, namely that synthetic-data value should track some measure of condition diversity such as the number of unique donor images or the variance of the edge maps, and measuring that curve directly would let practitioners predict when to switch strategies.
  • Editorial inference: because layouts are taken from real images, the diverse-layout condition is a stand-in for perfect labels-first generation; actual labels-first methods that must synthesize layouts without a donor pool will likely land somewhere between prompt-only and the reported 34% to 177% gains.
  • Editorial inference: the MVTec results hint that the diversity effect holds even far from the diffusion model's training distribution, but they still rely on the same donor-pool assumption; extending the study by generating layouts from a learned prior rather than from real edge maps would test whether the gains survive without access to target-domain images.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies how the type of conditioning used with a diffusion model (SDXL plus a canny ControlNet) affects the quality of synthetic training data for few-shot object detection. Across four detection benchmarks and 80 selected visual concepts, the authors compare prompt-only conditioning, layout+prompt conditioning, and a 'diverse' variant in which captions and canny edges are extracted from a larger held-out set of real images. They report that prompt conditioning is better when the condition pool is small, while layout+prompt conditioning becomes superior as conditioning diversity grows. The headline quantitative claim is that diverse layout+prompt synthetic data improves mAP by an average of 34%, and up to 177%, relative to training on real data alone. Detection models are YOLOv8 variants trained on mixed batches of real and synthetic images, with labels generated by Owl-v2.

Significance. If the main claim holds, the paper would provide actionable guidance for building synthetic-data pipelines for object detection: invest in diverse layout conditions rather than relying on text prompts alone. The study has several strengths: it spans four standard benchmarks, uses three random trials per condition, stratifies results by class difficulty, and reports open-source code. The controlled scaling experiment in Figure 6, in which both prompt and layout+prompt methods receive the same growing pool of conditions, is a clean way to compare the two conditioning strategies. However, the headline 'versus real data' comparison is currently confounded by two additional resources that change at the same time: a larger pool of real images and an external zero-shot labeler. The internal inconsistency between the 34% average in the abstract and the 84% average in the Figure 4 caption also needs to be resolved before the quantitative claims can be trusted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1 and Figure 2]
  2. [Abstract, Section 5.1, and Figure 4 caption]
  3. [Section 5.2 and Figure 6]
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Table 1]
  2. [Figure 6]
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (5)]
  4. [Section 5.1]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are empirical measurements of conditioning strategies, not derivations that reduce to their inputs; the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons of prompt-based versus layout-based conditioning for diffusion-generated synthetic training data. The 'Diverse Layout + Prompt Conditions' arm draws captions and canny edges from a larger held-out real image pool and labels generated images with Owl-v2, while 'Real Data Only' uses only the k few-shot real images with RandAugment; this is a genuine experimental confound for the 34%/177% headline comparison, but it is not a circularity because no quantity is defined in terms of the claimed result and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The only self-citation appears in Section 4.3, where the mixing hyperparameters alpha = 0.5 and M = 10 are attributed to the authors' prior work [60]; this is a standard hyperparameter choice and does not carry the paper's central argument. The internal discrepancy between the 34% average gain in the Abstract and the 84% gain in the Figure 4 caption is a reporting consistency issue, not a circularity. The derivation chain, from diffusion sampling and ControlNet conditioning through Owl-v2 labeling and YOLOv8 training, is self-contained and evaluated against external benchmarks (ImageNet, COCO, Pascal VOC, MVTec AD).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is purely empirical; no new mathematical constants or entities are introduced. The main load-bearing choices are the proxy conditions (canny edges), the labeler, and the donor pool, all listed as axioms.

free parameters (2)
  • Synthetic-to-real mixing ratio alpha = 0.5
    Chosen as standard practice from prior work (Trabucco et al. 2024). It affects the balance of real and synthetic data in each batch, but the comparative prompt-vs-layout conclusions are not shown to depend on it.
  • Synthetic images per real example M = 10
    Chosen from prior work; Figure 7 shows gains persist across M=1 to 10, so it is not critical to the central trade-off.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Canny edge maps are a valid proxy for layout conditioning and labels-first generation
    Section 4.1 uses a ControlNet canny-edge checkpoint and Section 3 explicitly states layouts are a proxy for bounding-box-conditioned labels-first generation. The generalization from canny edges to other layout representations is unverified.
  • domain assumption Owl-v2 zero-shot detection provides labels of sufficient quality for the synthetic data
    Section 4.2 uses Owl-v2 with confidence threshold 0.1; the paper does not measure label noise on synthetic images, only asserts that mixing real and synthetic data mitigates the issue.
  • domain assumption The held-out donor image set represents the full training distribution for diverse conditioning
    Section 5.1 and Figure 2 use a larger, held out set to supply diverse prompts and layouts; the paper does not measure how well this set covers the target distribution.
  • standard math Standard diffusion model equations correctly model the generation process
    Section 3 invokes the standard DDPM formulation; no derivation is needed for the empirical claims.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding Trade offs When Conditioning Synthetic Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/56BQLNKR

@misc{pith2026250702217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding Trade offs When Conditioning Synthetic Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/56BQLNKR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02217}
}
read the original abstract

Learning robust object detectors from only a handful of images is a critical challenge in industrial vision systems, where collecting high quality training data can take months. Synthetic data has emerged as a key solution for data efficient visual inspection and pick and place robotics. Current pipelines rely on 3D engines such as Blender or Unreal, which offer fine control but still require weeks to render a small dataset, and the resulting images often suffer from a large gap between simulation and reality. Diffusion models promise a step change because they can generate high quality images in minutes, yet precise control, especially in low data regimes, remains difficult. Although many adapters now extend diffusion beyond plain text prompts, the effect of different conditioning schemes on synthetic data quality is poorly understood. We study eighty diverse visual concepts drawn from four standard object detection benchmarks and compare two conditioning strategies: prompt based and layout based. When the set of conditioning cues is narrow, prompt conditioning yields higher quality synthetic data; as diversity grows, layout conditioning becomes superior. When layout cues match the full training distribution, synthetic data raises mean average precision by an average of thirty four percent and by as much as one hundred seventy seven percent compared with using real data alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02217 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow for generating labeled synthetic data for object detection. Starting from a collection of real images labeled with instance bounding boxes, we explore the impact of the type of conditioning (prompts and canny edge maps), and the source of donor images that conditions are drawn from (incrementally increasing the size of the donor image pool). Our ablation highlights a key trade-off: with relatively few donor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We study three synthetic data strategies. Prompt-Conditioning (left) uses captions from real examples, via a VLM, to generate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example generated images and labels using diverse con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Main synthetic data evaluation. Compares performance across all datasets and all conditioning strategies, as the number of real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analysis of synthetic data gains stratified by difficulty. Looking at ImageNet, using 128 real examples as the seed set, we stratify [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Diversity scaling for prompt and layout conditions. Per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Analysis of model scaling and synthetic-to-real ratio on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report, 2023

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ah- mad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report, 2023. 4

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Shekoofeh Azizi, Simon Kornblith, Chitwan Saharia, Mo- hammad Norouzi, and David J. Fleet. Synthetic data from diffusion models improves imagenet classification. ArXiv, abs/2304.08466, 2023. 1, 2

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Label-efficient se- mantic segmentation with diffusion models, 2022

    Dmitry Baranchuk, Ivan Rubachev, Andrey V oynov, Valentin Khrulkov, and Artem Babenko. Label-efficient se- mantic segmentation with diffusion models, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Mvtec ad — a comprehensive real-world dataset for unsupervised anomaly detection

    Paul Bergmann, Michael Fauser, David Sattlegger, and Carsten Steger. Mvtec ad — a comprehensive real-world dataset for unsupervised anomaly detection. In 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 9584–9592, 2019. 5, 1

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    A computational approach to edge detection

    John Canny. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, PAMI-8(6):679–698, 1986. 1

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    A computational approach to edge detection

    John Canny. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence, (6):679–698, 1986. 2

    1986

  7. [7]

    Combating noisy labels in object detection datasets

    Krystian Chachuła, Jakub Łyskawa, Bartłomiej Olber, Piotr Fr ˛ atczak, Adam Popowicz, and Krystian Radlak. Combat- ing noisy labels in object detection datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13993, 2022. 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V

    Ekin D. Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V . Le. Randaugment: Practical data augmentation with no sep- arate search. CoRR, abs/1909.13719, 2019. 6

    arXiv 1909

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Emu: Enhanc- ing image generation models using photogenic needles in a haystack

    Xiaoliang Dai, Ji Hou, Chih-Yao Ma, Sam Tsai, Jialiang Wang, Rui Wang, Peizhao Zhang, Simon Vandenhende, Xi- aofang Wang, Abhimanyu Dubey, et al. Emu: Enhanc- ing image generation models using photogenic needles in a haystack. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15807, 2023. 1, 2

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 248–255, 2009. 5, 1

    2009

  3. [11]

    Auto-generating weak labels for real & synthetic data to improve label-scarce medical image segmentation

    Tanvi Deshpande, Eva Prakash, Elsie Gyang Ross, Curtis Langlotz, Andrew Y Ng, and Jeya Maria Jose Valanarasu. Auto-generating weak labels for real & synthetic data to improve label-scarce medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17033, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Mark Everingham, Luc Van Gool, Christopher K. I. Williams, John M. Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. The pas- cal visual object classes (voc) challenge.Int. J. Comput. Vis., 88(2):303–338, 2010. 5, 1

    2010

  5. [13]

    Instagen: Enhancing object detection by training on syn- thetic dataset

    Chengjian Feng, Yujie Zhong, Zequn Jie, Weidi Xie, and Lin Ma. Instagen: Enhancing object detection by training on syn- thetic dataset. 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 14121–14130,

    2024

  6. [14]

    Instructdiffusion: A generalist modeling inter- face for vision tasks

    Zigang Geng, Binxin Yang, Tiankai Hang, Chen Li, Shuyang Gu, Ting Zhang, Jianmin Bao, Zheng Zhang, Houqiang Li, Han Hu, et al. Instructdiffusion: A generalist modeling inter- face for vision tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Reco...

    2024

  7. [15]

    On pretraining data diversity for self-supervised learning

    Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Tuhin Das, Fabio Pizzati, Philip Torr, Adel Bibi, and Bernard Ghanem. On pretraining data diversity for self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13808, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Multi-modal few- shot object detection with meta-learning-based cross-modal prompting

    Guangxing Han, Long Chen, Jiawei Ma, Shiyuan Huang, Rama Chellappa, and Shih-Fu Chang. Multi-modal few- shot object detection with meta-learning-based cross-modal prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07841, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Meta faster r-cnn: Towards accurate few-shot object detection with attentive feature alignment

    Guangxing Han, Shiyuan Huang, Jiawei Ma, Yicheng He, and Shih-Fu Chang. Meta faster r-cnn: Towards accurate few-shot object detection with attentive feature alignment. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, pages 780–789, 2022. 2

    2022

  10. [18]

    Girshick

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Dollár, and Ross B. Girshick. Mask R-CNN. CoRR, abs/1703.06870, 2017. 2

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    IS SYN- THETIC DATA FROM GENERATIVE MODELS READY FOR IMAGE RECOGNITION? In The Eleventh Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    Ruifei He, Shuyang Sun, Xin Yu, Chuhui Xue, Wenqing Zhang, Philip Torr, Song Bai, and XIAOJUAN QI. IS SYN- THETIC DATA FROM GENERATIVE MODELS READY FOR IMAGE RECOGNITION? In The Eleventh Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 1

    2023

  12. [20]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. ArXiv, abs/2207.12598, 2022. 4

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. CoRR, abs/2006.11239, 2020. 3

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. CoRR, abs/2106.09685, 2021. 1

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Task agnos- tic meta-learning for few-shot learning

    Muhammad Abdullah Jamal and Guo-Jun Qi. Task agnos- tic meta-learning for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11719–11727, 2019. 2

    2019

  16. [24]

    Ultralytics YOLO, 2023

    Glenn Jocher, Jing Qiu, and Ayush Chaurasia. Ultralytics YOLO, 2023. 5

    2023

  17. [25]

    Eta inver- sion: Designing an optimal eta function for diffusion-based real image editing

    Wonjun Kang, Kevin Galim, and Hyung Il Koo. Eta inver- sion: Designing an optimal eta function for diffusion-based real image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09468, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross B

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross B. Girshick. Segment anything. 2023 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , p...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neu- ral networks

    James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska- Barwinska, et al. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neu- ral networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sc...

    2017

  20. [28]

    Dataset enhancement with instance-level augmentations

    Orest Kupyn and Christian Rupprecht. Dataset enhancement with instance-level augmentations. ArXiv, abs/2406.08249,

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Controlnet ++: Improving conditional controls with efficient consistency feedback

    Ming Li, Taojiannan Yang, Huafeng Kuang, Jie Wu, Zhaon- ing Wang, Xuefeng Xiao, and Chen Chen. Controlnet ++: Improving conditional controls with efficient consistency feedback. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 129–147. Springer, 2025. 2

    2025

  22. [30]

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

    Yuheng Li, 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. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22511–22521, 2023. 2

    2023

  23. [31]

    Lawrence Zitnick

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2014 , pages 740–755, Cham,

    2014

  24. [32]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning, 2023. 4

    2023

  25. [33]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. In NeurIPS, 2023. 4

    2023

  26. [34]

    Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detec- tion

    Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Chun yue Li, Jianwei Yang, Hang Su, Jun-Juan Zhu, and Lei Zhang. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detec- tion. ArXiv, abs/2303.05499, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Fixing weight decay reg- ularization in adam

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Fixing weight decay reg- ularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101, 2017. 5

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    The effect of improving annotation quality on object detection datasets: A preliminary study

    Jiaxin Ma, Yoshitaka Ushiku, and Miori Sagara. The effect of improving annotation quality on object detection datasets: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4850–4859, 2022. 2

    2022

  29. [37]

    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. 2

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Gritsenko, and Neil Houlsby

    Matthias Minderer, Alexey A. Gritsenko, and Neil Houlsby. Scaling open-vocabulary object detection. ArXiv, abs/2306.09683, 2023. 2, 4

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Theo Moutakanni, Huy V . V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Rus- sell Howes, Po-Yao Huang, Hu Xu, Vasu Sharma, Shang- Wen Li, Wojciech Galuba, Mike Rabbat, Mido Assran, Nico...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Hierarchical attention network for few-shot object detection via meta-contrastive learning

    Dongwoo Park and Jong-Min Lee. Hierarchical attention network for few-shot object detection via meta-contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07039, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Localizing object-level shape variations with text-to-image diffusion models

    Or Patashnik, Daniel Garibi, Idan Azuri, Hadar Averbuch- Elor, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Localizing object-level shape variations with text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 23051–23061, 2023. 2

    2023

  34. [42]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023. 1

    2023

  35. [43]

    Meta-learning with implicit gradients

    Aravind Rajeswaran, Chelsea Finn, Sham M Kakade, and Sergey Levine. Meta-learning with implicit gradients. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems , 32, 2019. 2

    2019

  36. [44]

    Zero-shot text-to-image generation

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea V oss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International confer- ence on machine learning, pages 8821–8831. Pmlr, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  37. [45]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents, 2022

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image gener- ation with clip latents, 2022. 1

    2022

  38. [46]

    YOLO9000: better, faster, stronger

    Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. YOLO9000: better, faster, stronger. CoRR, abs/1612.08242, 2016. 2

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Yolov3: An incremental improvement

    Joseph Redmon and Ali Farhadi. Yolov3: An incremental improvement. CoRR, abs/1804.02767, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Girshick, and Ali Farhadi

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Kumar Divvala, Ross B. Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. You only look once: Unified, real-time ob- ject detection. CoRR, abs/1506.02640, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Real-time flying object detection with yolov8

    Dillon Reis, Jordan Kupec, Jacqueline Hong, and Ahmad Daoudi. Real-time flying object detection with yolov8. ArXiv, abs/2305.09972, 2023. 2, 5

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. CoRR, abs/2112.10752,

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Sara Mahdavi, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Burcu Karagol Ayan, S. Sara Mahdavi, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion mod...

    2022

  44. [52]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information...

    2022

  45. [53]

    Meta-learning with memory-augmented neural networks

    Adam Santoro, Sergey Bartunov, Matthew Botvinick, Daan Wierstra, and Timothy Lillicrap. Meta-learning with memory-augmented neural networks. In International con- ference on machine learning , pages 1842–1850. PMLR,

  46. [54]

    Using diffusion models to generate syn- thetic labelled data for medical image segmentation

    Daniel Saragih et al. Using diffusion models to generate syn- thetic labelled data for medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16794, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    How ford uses ai for quality control

    Robert Schoenberger. How ford uses ai for quality control. https://www.industryweek.com/technology- and- iiot/video/55235042/how- ford- uses- ai- for- quality- control. Accessed: 2025-02-16. 1

    2025

  48. [56]

    Weiss, Niru Mah- eswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A. Weiss, Niru Mah- eswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. CoRR, abs/1503.03585, 2015. 3

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Denois- ing diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denois- ing diffusion implicit models. CoRR, abs/2010.02502, 2020. 3

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Fsce: Few-shot object detection via contrastive pro- posal encoding

    Bo Sun, Banghuai Li, Shengcai Cai, Ye Yuan, and Chi Zhang. Fsce: Few-shot object detection via contrastive pro- posal encoding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 7352– 7362, 2021. 2

    2021

  51. [59]

    Gen2det: Generate to detect

    Saksham Suri, Fanyi Xiao, Animesh Sinha, Sean Chang Cu- latana, Raghuraman Krishnamoorthi, Chenchen Zhu, and Abhinav Shrivastava. Gen2det: Generate to detect. ArXiv, abs/2312.04566, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Effective data augmentation with diffu- sion models

    Brandon Trabucco, Kyle Doherty, Max A Gurinas, and Rus- lan Salakhutdinov. Effective data augmentation with diffu- sion models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 1, 5

    2024

  53. [61]

    Magic: Multi-modality guided image completion

    Hao Wang, Yongsheng Yu, Tiejian Luo, Heng Fan, and Libo Zhang. Magic: Multi-modality guided image completion. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2024. 2

    2024

  54. [62]

    Investigating prompt engineering in diffusion models, 2022

    Sam Witteveen and Martin Andrews. Investigating prompt engineering in diffusion models, 2022. 3

    2022

  55. [63]

    Datasetdm: Synthesizing data with perception annota- tions using diffusion models

    Wei Wu, Yuzhong Zhao, Hao Chen, Yuchao Gu, Rui Zhao, Yefei He, Hong Zhou, Mike Zheng Shou, and Chunhua Shen. Datasetdm: Synthesizing data with perception annota- tions using diffusion models. ArXiv, abs/2308.06160, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Meta-rcnn: Meta learning for few-shot object detection

    Xiongwei Wu, Doyen Sahoo, and Steven Hoi. Meta-rcnn: Meta learning for few-shot object detection. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 1679–1687, 2020. 2

    2020

  57. [65]

    Scaling robot learning with semantically imagined experi- ence

    Tianhe Yu, Ted Xiao, Austin Stone, Jonathan Tompson, An- thony Brohan, Su Wang, Jaspiar Singh, Clayton Tan, Dee M, Jodilyn Peralta, Brian Ichter, Karol Hausman, and Fei Xia. Scaling robot learning with semantically imagined experi- ence. In arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11550, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end- to-end object detection

    Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Shilong Liu, Lei Zhang, Hang Su, Jun- Juan Zhu, Lionel Ming shuan Ni, and Heung yeung Shum. Dino: Detr with improved denoising anchor boxes for end- to-end object detection. ArXiv, abs/2203.03605, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models, 2023

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2023

  60. [68]

    Rethinking pre- training and self-training

    Barret Zoph, Golnaz Ghiasi, Tsung-Yi Lin, Yin Cui, Hanx- iao Liu, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, and Quoc Le. Rethinking pre- training and self-training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:3833–3845, 2020. 2 Understanding Trade-offs When Conditioning Synthetic Data Suppl...

    2020

  61. [70]

    These datasets are chosen to span a representative set of tasks that re- searchers and practitioners use when training and evaluat- ing object detection models

    Dataset Details We employ four datasets in this work: ImageNet [10], COCO [31], Pascal [12], and MVTec [4]. These datasets are chosen to span a representative set of tasks that re- searchers and practitioners use when training and evaluat- ing object detection models. The firs...

  62. [71]

    g e n e r a t i o n prompt

    System Prompts We employ OpenAI’s GPT-4o model, queried through the OpenAI API to generate descriptive captions for images in each data—excluding COCO, which already contains such captions in the existing annotations. Given an image from target datasets, we first resize the im...

    2014

  63. [72]

    Hyperparameters In this section, we provide the hyperparameter used in syn- thetic data generation, including parameters of the diffusion process used for image generation, the label generation with Owl-v2 [38], and layout condition extraction. Values for hyperparameters are s...

  64. [2014]

    Springer International Publishing. 5, 1

Pith tools

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