Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 30 references

P3S-Diffusion:A Selective Subject-driven Generation Framework via Point Supervision

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read P3S-Diffusion shows that a single point-click in a reference image is enough to tell a diffusion model which subject to generate, even when a nearly identical distractor sits in the same photo.

desk verdict Point-supervised subject selection is genuinely new, but the central claim—reliable selection among similar instances—is not yet quantitatively supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19533 v2 pith:6JGMDYWY submitted 2024-12-27 cs.CV cs.AI

Junjie Hu , Shuyong Gao , Lingyi Hong , Qishan Wang , Yuzhou Zhao , Yan Wang , Wenqiang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords subject-drivengenerationpointsupervisiondiffusionmodelsselectivesubjectrepresentationRNGR-EncoderattentionconsistencylossimagepersonalizationCLIPpatchsimilarity
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 proposes P3S-Diffusion, a method for subject-driven image generation in which the user selects the subject of a reference image with a single point (plus one negative point), rather than writing a detailed text prompt or drawing a pixel mask. The paper's central claim is that this minimal annotation is enough: the model derives an approximate mask from CLIP patch-level similarities, inpaints away any similarly looking distractor (for example, a second dog), and then injects the selected subject's features into a frozen text-to-image diffusion model through a trainable U-Net copy. If the claim holds, selective subject generation—knowing which of several similar objects to copy—becomes nearly free in annotation cost and can be combined with other controllers such as ControlNet. The method is evaluated on DreamBench with CLIP-I, CLIP-T, and DINOv2 metrics; the reported numbers place it at or near the top in subject fidelity while retaining diversity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the RNGR-Encoder plus the multi-layer condition injection. RNGR-Encoder turns one positive and one negative click into a rough binary mask via Eq. 1–3: patch cosine similarity from CLIP features, suppression by the negative map, Gaussian filtering, Otsu binarization, and connected-component cleanup, followed by inpainting of the masked region. The cleaned image is then encoded and cross-attended with CLIP's last hidden state (Eq. 4–5) to bias the latent toward the selected subject. Multi-layers Condition Injection copies a simplified U-Net and delivers its self-attention hidden features into the original U-Net's self-attention layers by concatenation and addition with a small weight $\lambda=0.2$ (Eq. 6–8), using zero convolutions; the timestep-based weight scheduler $\epsilon_t = 1 - \alpha(t/T)^k + \beta$ adjusts control strength over the denoising trajectory, and the attention consistency loss $L_{ac}$ (Eq. 11–13) matches the last cross-attention map of the trainable copy to the frozen model's map.

What would settle it

Create reference images containing two same-breed dogs of different individual identity, click one as positive and the other as negative, and measure the RNGR-Encoder mask's intersection-over-union against a human-annotated segmentation of the clicked dog; if the mask routinely includes or swaps in the negative dog (IoU clearly below, say, 0.5), the selective-selection claim fails. A second check: run the pipeline with the negative point moved from the distractor to plain background; if the selected subject changes dramatically, the selection is driven mainly by the negative-point suppression term, localizing the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, P3S-Diffusion's discovery is that point supervision is a sufficient interface for selective subject-driven generation. Given a reference image I and a point p on the target subject, the RNGR-Encoder computes the cosine similarity between the patch containing p and every other patch in CLIP's image feature map, suppresses it with the similarity to a user-provided negative point, Gaussian-smooths, Otsu-binarizes, and keeps the connected component around p to produce a rough mask. The mask is then inpainted, so the negative subject disappears; the completed image is encoded to latent form and cross-attended with CLIP features, and the result is fed through a trainable simplified U-Net whose hidden self-attention states are concatenated into the frozen original U-Net. A timestep-based weight scheduler reduces control early in denoising to preserve editability, and an attention consistency loss aligns the trainable copy's cross-attention with the frozen model's. The paper reports that this lets the model faithfully generate the clicked subject while ignoring a visually similar second subject in the same reference image, without any segmentation model.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the positive-point patch similarity, after negative-point suppression and Otsu binarization, reliably isolates the clicked subject and not the visually similar distractor; if CLIP's class-level features cannot separate the two, the mask and everything after it collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A point click can replace pixel masks and per-subject text descriptions for subject-driven generation, cutting annotation cost.
  • The pipeline can be applied to frozen diffusion backbones, and the paper states it is compatible with ControlNet-style controllers.
  • The timestep-based weight scheduler lets one trained model trade identity fidelity against prompt editability at inference time by changing $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $k$.
  • Attention consistency loss on the last cross-attention layer improves subject fidelity; applying it to all layers causes underfitting and worse scores, so the paper recommends the last layer only.
  • On DreamBench the method reports the best DINOv2 score among compared methods and competitive CLIP-I, meaning it preserves fine subject features while keeping diversity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The approximate mask produced by point clicks could be used as a free by-product for other tasks, such as weakly supervised segmentation or dataset annotation, since it requires no segmentation model and only two clicks.
  • Because CLIP is explicitly trained at class level, the method's success on two similar dogs likely depends more on the negative-point suppression and the connected-component cleanup than on CLIP's fine discrimination; stress tests with identical twins or same-breed dogs would expose the true ceiling.
  • The same attention-consistency idea could stabilize other multi-adapter or multi-subject conditioning schemes, where a trainable adapter drifts from the frozen base model during fine-tuning.
  • Nothing in the architecture ties the mask to diffusion; the RNGR-Encoder alone could serve as a point-to-mask proposer for any image-editing pipeline that needs a rough subject mask.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. P3S-Diffusion proposes a point-supervised framework for subject-driven generation. Given a reference image and positive/negative points, an RNGR-Encoder computes patch-level CLIP similarities, suppresses the negative-point region, applies Gaussian filtering and Otsu binarization to obtain a rough mask, and inpaints the masked region. The resulting latent is injected through a trainable copy of a simplified U-Net via self- and cross-attention condition injection, with a timestep-based weight scheduler and an attention consistency loss. The paper reports DreamBench quantitative results and qualitative examples, and claims that the method can select one of two visually similar subjects using only point annotations, without pixel masks or extra segmentation models.

Significance. If the selective-subject claim were fully supported, the paper would make a practical contribution: point annotation is substantially cheaper than pixel masks and more precise than text descriptions for disambiguating same-class instances. The architecture is simple enough to reproduce, and the paper includes ablations of the main components on DreamBench, which is a strength. However, the decisive evaluation for the central claim is missing: the selective scenario is only shown qualitatively, and the quantitative benchmark does not measure whether the correct instance was selected. As it stands, the contribution is a plausible but unvalidated engineering proposal rather than a demonstrated capability.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-B, Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Table I] The paper's central claim is that two points allow the model to select one of two similar subjects, but this claim is supported only by qualitative examples. DreamBench, used for Table I, mostly contains single-subject images and no selection-accuracy metric; the RNGR-Encoder ablation in Table II measures overall CLIP-I/DINOv2 scores, not whether the correct instance was selected. Please add a dedicated evaluation: a multi-subject benchmark with ground-truth instance masks, reporting mask IoU for Eq. (2), selection accuracy after inpainting and after generation, and a comparison against SSR-Encoder and other baselines on the same multi-subject prompts. Without such a metric, a failure of Eqs. (1)–(3) could make the entire pipeline collapse while remaining invisible in the current tables.
  2. [§III-A, Eqs. (1)–(3)] The selection mechanism relies on CLIP patch similarity to separate two instances of the same class, yet the paper itself states that CLIP is trained on class-level annotations and fails at instance-level recognition. The negative-point suppression (1−M_N) only helps if the distractor has high similarity to the negative point and low similarity to the positive point; for two similar dogs, CLIP may assign high similarity to both, either suppressing the target or letting both pass the Otsu threshold. This is an empirical assumption that is never validated. Please report positive/negative similarity distributions on multi-instance images, provide mask-quality statistics, or justify why a different patch-feature source (e.g., DINO) would not be more appropriate.
  3. [§IV-B, Table I] The sentence 'P3S-Diffusion basically outweighs previous method' overstates the quantitative results. In Table I, SSR-Encoder is higher than Ours on CLIP-I (0.7793 vs 0.7748), CLIP-Iv (0.0032 vs 0.0045) and DINO-v (0.0140 vs 0.0187); Ours is higher only on DINOv2 and CLIP-T. Please state the comparison precisely, report confidence intervals or significance tests across the 30 classes, and avoid the claim of overall superiority unless it is statistically supported.
  4. [§IV-C, Table II] The ablation 'W/o RNGR-Encoder' is not informative for the selective-subject claim because DreamBench does not contain the two-similar-subjects scenario. Removing RNGR-Encoder may degrade single-subject fidelity while leaving the selective capability entirely untested. All ablations should be repeated on the proposed multi-subject benchmark so that the contribution of each component to correct selection can be assessed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III-A, Eq. (1)] The notation Cos(patch_{x′,y′}, patch_{i,j}) is undefined; please specify which patch contains the point p, how point coordinates map to patch indices, and how the similarity values are arranged into the matrix M.
  2. [§III-A, Eq. (2)] The text describes removing outliers that are not connected to the specified points, but this connected-component filtering is not present in Eq. (2). Please include it in the equation or define it as a separate preprocessing step.
  3. [§IV-A, Evaluation Metrics] The metrics are described inconsistently: the text mentions 'DINO Scores [30]' but then refers to 'GroundingDINOv2', and the reference [30] is the DINOv1 paper. Please clarify which model is used, which layer/patch tokens are compared, and give a citation for the exact DINOv2 or GroundingDINO variant.
  4. [§III-B, Eq. (11)] The normalization in Lac is unclear: avg is defined as the average of the sums of the two attention maps, not the average of the maps themselves. Please clarify the intended normalization and why this particular scaling was chosen.
  5. [§IV-C, Table III and Fig. 5] The timestep scheduler is controlled by hyperparameters α=0.5, β=0.2, k=2, but no sensitivity study is reported; Table III only tests two hand-picked curves. A small sweep or a statement of robustness across these parameters would strengthen the claims about balancing identity and editability.
  6. [§V, Conclusion] The limitation that the method 'does not perform well on non-salient images' is not defined or quantified. Please specify what 'non-salient' means and provide examples or failure statistics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the point-to-mask pipeline is a heuristic whose empirical correctness is untested, but no claim is forced by its own equations or by self-citations.

full rationale

P3S-Diffusion is an empirical method paper. The mask construction (Eq. 1-3) takes CLIP patch similarities as input and produces a mask via multiplication, Gaussian filtering, Otsu binarization, and connected-component filtering; the mask is then used for inpainting and feature injection (Eq. 4-8). This is a forward pipeline, not a definitional identity: nothing in Eq. 1-8 assumes the final claim that two points select one of two similar dogs. The paper's central quantitative claims are checked against DreamBench, an external benchmark, with CLIP-I, CLIP-T, DINOv2, and variance metrics; the reported numbers are not the same quantities that were fitted. Hyperparameters (alpha, beta, k, lambda, gamma, choice of last-layer Lac) are selected empirically, and no held-out split is described, which is a validation-selection weakness but not a circular reduction. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: citations to prior work (ControlNet, DreamBooth, SSR-Encoder, CLIP, FastComposer) are external or methodological. The conclusion's own limitations (rich-detail fidelity, non-salient images) and the Sec. III-A admission that CLIP "fails to accurately recognize objects with different instances of the same class" indicate that the weakest point is whether Eq. 2 reliably excludes a same-class distractor; that is an unsupported empirical assumption, not a circular one. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its output by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 0.

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

All introduced components (RNGR-Encoder, Multi-layers Condition Injection, Attention Consistency Loss, timestep-based weight scheduler) are neural network modules implemented in code; none are new physical entities requiring independent evidence. The central assumptions are the reliability of CLIP patch similarity for instance-level masking and the inpainting step as a safe negative-subject remover.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda = 0.2
    Weight for adding hidden features into original self-attention layers in Eq. (7); chosen by hand, no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • alpha, beta, k (timestep scheduler) = alpha=0.5, beta=0.2, k=2
    Eq. (10) controls multiplier, bias, and exponent for condition injection over denoising time; empirically set to balance prompt consistency and identity preservation.
  • gamma (attention consistency loss weight) = 0.1
    Weight for Lac in Eq. (15); chosen empirically without reported sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CLIP image-patch similarity from a point can localize a specific instance within a class
    Sec. III-A, Eq. (1)-(2). The paper explicitly concedes CLIP is class-level, so instance-level selection is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Inpainting the masked region removes negative subjects without corrupting the target subject representation
    Sec. III-A, Eq. (3) and surrounding text; no quantitative check of mask or inpainting quality is provided.
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion v1-5 and CLIP ViT-L/14 contain sufficient visual priors for subject separation
    Used as frozen backbone throughout the paper; no analysis of failure modes or dataset bias.
  • ad hoc to paper Attention consistency between trainable copy and frozen U-Net improves fidelity
    Proposed in Sec. III-B, Eq. (11)-(13); choosing the last cross-attention layer is justified only by the ablation in Table IV, not by a derivation.
  • standard math Otsu thresholding and Gaussian filtering on the similarity map produce a useful mask
    Sec. III-A, Eq. (2); standard algorithms, but their suitability here is not validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of P3S-Diffusion:A Selective Subject-driven Generation Framework via Point Supervision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JGMDYWY

@misc{pith2026241219533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: P3S-Diffusion:A Selective Subject-driven Generation Framework via Point Supervision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JGMDYWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19533}
}
read the original abstract

Recent research in subject-driven generation increasingly emphasizes the importance of selective subject features. Nevertheless, accurately selecting the content in a given reference image still poses challenges, especially when selecting the similar subjects in an image (e.g., two different dogs). Some methods attempt to use text prompts or pixel masks to isolate specific elements. However, text prompts often fall short in precisely describing specific content, and pixel masks are often expensive. To address this, we introduce P3S-Diffusion, a novel architecture designed for context-selected subject-driven generation via point supervision. P3S-Diffusion leverages minimal cost label (e.g., points) to generate subject-driven images. During fine-tuning, it can generate an expanded base mask from these points, obviating the need for additional segmentation models. The mask is employed for inpainting and aligning with subject representation. The P3S-Diffusion preserves fine features of the subjects through Multi-layers Condition Injection. Enhanced by the Attention Consistency Loss for improved training, extensive experiments demonstrate its excellent feature preservation and image generation capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19533 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Selective subject comparison. Our results not only excel in selective subject generations but also performs well in terms of fidelity to the reference subjects. Consistency Loss between original U-Net and trainable copies to enhance text-image alignment. Additionally, we introduce a timestep-based weight scheduler to relieve excessive control and increase the diversity of generation. • Extensive experiments show tha… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our method. Given point-image pairs (p, I), the RNGR-Encoder will calculate the patch-level similarity on the hidden state feature from CLIP image encoder.It achieves obtaining a rough mask from point information without the need for any additional segmentation models.Then we inpaint the masked image and enhance subject presentation by image-image cross-attention.After that, the encoded feature serve as … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Subject-driven Generation. We utilize Multi-layers Condition Injection to add conditions. Specifically, we add the hidden states both in self and cross attention layers to the original model through a zero convolution. This can inject a detailed image representation and keep the generated subject. During training, we adopt denoising reconstruction loss LLDM and attention consistency loss Lac for consistent represent… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results of P3S-Diffusion .Our method is adaptable for both single subject generation and selective subject generation with points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Result of different weight. Adjust the control weights between original U-Net and trainable copy will balance the prompt consistency and identity preservation. MLP represents a learnable control weight parameter. two points and faithfully generate it according to the r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion

    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 preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 3836– 3847, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Ssr-encoder: Encoding selective subject representation for subject-driven generation, 2024

    Yuxuan Zhang, Yiren Song, Jiaming Liu, Rui Wang, Jinpeng Yu, Hao Tang, Huaxia Li, Xu Tang, Yao Hu, Han Pan, and Zhongliang Jing. Ssr-encoder: Encoding selective subject representation for subject-driven generation, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning , pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

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

    2021

  7. [7]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125 , 1(2):3, 2022

    arXiv 2022

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Photorealistic text-to-image dif- fusion 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 dif- fusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural informati...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 4195–4205, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Playground v2

    Daiqing Li, Aleks Kamko, Ali Sabet, Ehsan Akhgari, Linmiao Xu, and Suhail Doshi. Playground v2

  4. [12]

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

    Hu Ye, 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 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance

    Guillaume Couairon, Jakob Verbeek, Holger Schwenk, and Matthieu Cord. Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11427 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Noisecollage: A layout-aware text-to-image diffusion model based on noise cropping and merging

    Takahiro Shirakawa and Seiichi Uchida. Noisecollage: A layout-aware text-to-image diffusion model based on noise cropping and merging. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Dragdiffusion: Harnessing diffusion models for interactive point-based image editing

    Yujun Shi, Chuhui Xue, Jiachun Pan, Wenqing Zhang, Vincent YF Tan, and Song Bai. Dragdiffusion: Harnessing diffusion models for interactive point-based image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14435 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

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

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

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

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2250...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion

    Nupur Kumari, Bingliang Zhang, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1931–1941, 2023

    1931

  11. [19]

    Svdiff: Compact parameter space for diffusion fine-tuning

    Ligong Han, Yinxiao Li, Han Zhang, Peyman Milanfar, Dimitris Metaxas, and Feng Yang. Svdiff: Compact parameter space for diffusion fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 7323–7334, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Elite: Encoding visual concepts into textual embed- dings for customized text-to-image generation

    Yuxiang Wei, Yabo Zhang, Zhilong Ji, Jinfeng Bai, Lei Zhang, and Wangmeng Zuo. Elite: Encoding visual concepts into textual embed- dings for customized text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 15943– 15953, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Taming encoder for zero fine-tuning image customization with text-to-image diffusion models

    Xuhui Jia, Yang Zhao, Kelvin CK Chan, Yandong Li, Han Zhang, Boqing Gong, Tingbo Hou, Huisheng Wang, and Yu-Chuan Su. Taming encoder for zero fine-tuning image customization with text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02642 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Encoder-based domain tuning for fast personal- ization of text-to-image models

    Rinon Gal, Moab Arar, Yuval Atzmon, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Encoder-based domain tuning for fast personal- ization of text-to-image models. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 42(4):1–13, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Fastcomposer: Tuning-free multi-subject image generation with localized attention

    Guangxuan Xiao, Tianwei Yin, William T Freeman, Fr ´edo Durand, and Song Han. Fastcomposer: Tuning-free multi-subject image generation with localized attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10431 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Blip-diffusion: Pre-trained subject representation for controllable text-to-image generation and editing

    Dongxu Li, Junnan Li, and Steven Hoi. Blip-diffusion: Pre-trained subject representation for controllable text-to-image generation and editing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Instantbooth: Personalized text-to-image generation without test-time finetuning

    Jing Shi, Wei Xiong, Zhe Lin, and Hyun Joon Jung. Instantbooth: Personalized text-to-image generation without test-time finetuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03411, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Magicanimate: Temporally consistent human image animation using diffusion model

    Zhongcong Xu, Jianfeng Zhang, Jun Hao Liew, Hanshu Yan, Jia-Wei Liu, Chenxu Zhang, Jiashi Feng, and Mike Zheng Shou. Magicanimate: Temporally consistent human image animation using diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16498 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Pivotal tuning for latent-based editing of real images

    Daniel Roich, Ron Mokady, Amit H Bermano, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Pivotal tuning for latent-based editing of real images. ACM Transactions on graphics (TOG) , 42(1):1–13, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Designing an encoder for fast personalization of text-to-image models

    Rinon Gal, Moab Arar, Yuval Atzmon, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Designing an encoder for fast personalization of text-to-image models. arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv–2302, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4401–4410, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Emerging properties in 9 self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J ´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerging properties in 9 self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 9650–9660, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.