Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

TPIE: Topology-Preserved Image Editing With Text Instructions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TPIE makes text-guided image editing preserve object topology by generating edited images as diffeomorphic deformations of the input template.

desk verdict Solid idea, over-sold guarantee: the 'by construction' diffeomorphism claim is unverified at inference. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16714 v1 pith:ELSJKL4C submitted 2024-11-22 cs.CV

Nivetha Jayakumar , Srivardhan Reddy Gadila , Tonmoy Hossain , Yangfeng Ji , Miaomiao Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV MSC 68U1068T4592C55
keywords topology-preservingimageeditingdiffusionmodelstext-guideddiffeomorphictransformationslatentmedicalimagingregistrationvelocityfields
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 claims that text-guided image editing can preserve the topology and geometry of objects if the edited image is treated as a deformable variation of the input template, not as an independent re-synthesis of pixels. To do this, the proposed TPIE framework learns a latent space of diffeomorphic transformations from pairs of template and target images, then trains a latent conditional geometric diffusion model to sample such transformations conditioned on the template and a text instruction. Because every generated sample is obtained by warping the template, object topology is preserved by construction, and the text controls which geometric deformation is applied. The paper validates the approach on plant-growth images, longitudinal brain MRIs, and 3D hippocampus shapes, reporting lower FID scores than the baselines and a downstream classification improvement (85% versus 49% accuracy) on generated brain images.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the diffeomorphic transformation parameterized by a stationary velocity field, computed through a scaling-and-squaring integration of $d\phi_t/dt = v \circ \phi_t$. An autoencoder registration network encodes pairs of template and target images into a low-dimensional latent velocity $\gamma$, and its decoder projects sampled latents back to velocity fields that warp the template via a spatial transform layer. The second module, the latent conditional geometric diffusion model (LCDG), runs the diffusion process in this latent velocity space, conditioning the denoising UNet on the concatenation of the latent velocity, a downsampled template gradient, and a CLIP text embedding, with classifier-free guidance controlled by separate image and text scales.

What would settle it

Run TPIE on pairs where the target genuinely changes topology, for example a brain with a newly appearing tumor mass or a plant where a new leaf emerges from the stem, and check whether the registration loss can be minimized; the paper itself states that it relies on training images with consistent object topology. A direct numerical check is to compute Euler characteristics or Betti numbers of template and generated images: any generated sample whose Betti numbers differ from the template's would contradict the topology-preservation claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that topology preservation can be guaranteed rather than merely encouraged: instead of letting a diffusion model redraw the image, TPIE samples a stationary velocity field from a learned distribution of deformations, integrates it into a diffeomorphic transformation, and applies that transformation to the input template. The velocity-field representation is learned by an autoencoder registration network that aligns paired images, and the sampling distribution is modeled by the latent conditional geometric diffusion model (LCDG), whose reverse process conditions on the template's gradient and a CLIP text embedding. The paper demonstrates on brain, hippocampus, and plant data that the resulting edits expand ventricles, shrink the anterior hippocampus, and grow leaves while keeping each structure's topology intact, whereas baselines such as InstructPix2Pix produce torn or merged structures.

Load-bearing premise

The template and target images in each training pair must be deformable into one another without tearing, merging, or creating new structures; if a target has different topology, the registration loss cannot be minimized and the method's central promise fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Edited images inherit the topology of the input template, so structures like brain ventricles, plant leaves, or hippocampi cannot tear, merge, or disappear during editing.
  • Because sampling happens in the deformation space, the same template paired with a text instruction can yield many topology-preserving variants, enabling controlled data augmentation for downstream tasks.
  • The method can model and predict geometric progression over time from a single template, as shown by the hippocampus shrinkage and ventricle expansion trajectories in the paper.
  • Generated brain images trained a downstream classifier to 85% accuracy, versus 49% for images from a standard editing baseline, indicating that topology preservation carries into task utility.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If template-target pairs are diffeomorphically related, the same framework could plausibly extend to other continuous time-series imaging tasks, such as tumor growth or fetal development, though the paper does not test those settings.
  • A natural testable extension is to compute topological invariants such as Betti numbers or Euler characteristics on generated samples and directly verify that they match the template; the paper does not report such a topology metric.
  • The scaling module and latent diffusion scheme could be ported to richer deformation representations, such as non-stationary LDDMM geodesics, to handle larger deformations while keeping the same text conditioning.
  • The method is best suited to counterfactual medical 'what-if' questions whose answer is a deformation; changes that introduce genuinely new structures or alter image intensity and texture remain outside its stated scope.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TPIE, a text-guided image editing method that produces edited images by deforming a given template with a diffeomorphic transformation. A registration autoencoder learns latent velocity fields from paired template-target images, and a latent conditional geometric diffusion model (LCDG) samples these velocity latents conditioned on text instructions and a template gradient. At inference, the sampled velocity is decoded and integrated by scaling-and-squaring to deform the template, so the output is claimed to preserve topology by construction. Experiments on Komatsuna plant growth, 2D brain MRI, and 3D hippocampus data compare TPIE against IP2P, SDEdit, DreamBooth, and FastEdit using FID, KID, and IS, plus qualitative and confidence-interval visualizations.

Significance. If the diffeomorphic guarantee actually holds at inference, the paper addresses a real limitation of text-guided diffusion editors, particularly for medical imaging where anatomical topology matters. The idea of learning a latent distribution of velocity fields and conditioning a diffusion process on text is sensible and potentially useful for structure-preserving counterfactual generation. However, the central claim is currently asserted rather than verified: there is no quantitative topology or invertibility metric on generated samples, and the architecture does not explicitly enforce that decoded velocities produce diffeomorphisms. The code is promised but not yet available, which also limits reproducibility assessment.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 and Algorithm 2] The central claim that generated images are diffeomorphic deformations of the template is asserted 'by construction,' but the inference pipeline does not enforce it. The registration loss (Eq. 3) supervises the decoder only on training pairs and only penalizes ||∇v||^2; it does not constrain the Jacobian determinant of φ = exp(v) to be positive, nor does it constrain the decoder on out-of-distribution latents sampled by the diffusion process. The scaling module (Eq. 4) normalizes latents but does not restrict the decoded velocity's magnitude or smoothness, and a large or rough velocity can produce folding or tearing in the discrete scaling-and-squaring scheme. Please report quantitative checks on generated samples, such as the minimum Jacobian determinant of exp(v), the fraction of voxels with non-positive Jacobian, or an inverse-consistency error between forward and backward deformations, to substantiate the 'by construction' wording.
  2. [Table 1 and §5] The reported metrics (FID, KID, IS) are appearance- and distribution-based and do not measure topology. The paper's headline contribution is topology preservation, yet no quantitative topology metric (e.g., Betti numbers of segmented structures, persistent-homology distances, or Jacobian-determinant checks) is reported for any dataset or baseline. Without such a metric, the experimental section does not directly test the central claim; please add a topology-aware evaluation to the comparisons.
  3. [Discussions & Limitations] The limitation 'Our proposed model currently relies on training images with consistent object topology' is a substantive scope restriction, but the paper still claims in the abstract and introduction to 'ensure' topology preservation. More concretely, for the Komatsuna dataset the text states that 'leaves emerge from the bud'; if a template-target pair differs by the appearance of a new leaf, the two images are not diffeomorphically related and Eq. (3) cannot be minimized. Please clarify how template-target pairs are constructed to satisfy the consistent-topology assumption, or exclude non-diffeomorphic pairs, and temper the 'for the first time ensures' phrasing accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 2, line 7] The line 'ˆf_i = D_ω(γ_0,i, m_i)' is inconsistent with §3.1, where the decoder D_ω outputs a velocity field and the deformed image is produced by applying a spatial transform to the template; additionally, D_ω is not described as taking the template as input. Please correct the algorithm box to match the method description.
  2. [Table 1] Several entries contain typographical spacing errors (e.g., '0 .34(1.72e −7)'), and no error bars or standard deviations are reported for FID or KID, which is important given the small test sets and the very low FID values (e.g., 0.005 for hippocampus).
  3. [Throughout] There are repeated typos and inconsistencies: 'to to2562' should read 'to 256²', 'mi-minized' should be 'minimized', 'using using' should be 'using', and the acronym LCDG/LCGD is used inconsistently between the method text and Figure 3.
  4. [Figure 1] The figure label 'SOTA' is ambiguous; since the paper later identifies the comparison model as IP2P, please label the baseline explicitly.
  5. [§5 (classification)] The downstream classification result (85% vs. 49% accuracy) is reported as a single number without details on the train/test split, number of runs, or the CNN architecture, which limits the strength of the claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Topology preservation is guaranteed by construction (self-definitional), but the text-conditioned velocity diffusion is learned from data and independently benchmarked; no fitted-input circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section 1 (Introduction), Section 2 (Eq. 1), Section 3.2]
    "our method considers generated samples as deformable variants of the given input with the same topology ... each synthesized image will be generated by deforming the input template/reference image with a learned diffeomorphic transformation (a.k.a., one-to-one smooth and inverse smooth mapping) conditional on the text input."

    The headline property, topology preservation, is not derived from data or measured; it is entailed by the definition of the generative process. The output is defined as a diffeomorphic deformation of the input template via Eq. (1), so any output S∘φ^{-1} with φ a diffeomorphism preserves template topology by construction. Thus the claim 'TPIE preserves topology' reduces to the modeling assumption that edits are diffeomorphic warpings, which is the paper's own premise rather than an independent prediction. The text-conditioned diffusion part is learned from pairwise training data and can be evaluated on its own, so the circularity is partial and not a fitted-parameter renaming.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is largely self-contained: a registration autoencoder (Eq. 3) learns latent velocity fields from template-target pairs, and a latent conditional diffusion model (Eqs. 5-9) learns to sample those velocities conditioned on text and template gradient. At test (Alg. 2), a sampled latent is decoded and integrated to deform the template. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then renamed as a prediction; the diffusion model genuinely generates new velocities. The only load-bearing circular element is the 'topology preserved' guarantee: it is a logical consequence of defining edited images as diffeomorphic deformations of the template, so the paper is not empirically demonstrating topology preservation but enforcing it by construction. This is a legitimate design choice, though the paper overstates it as a finding, and the guarantee is conditional on the decoded velocity actually generating a diffeomorphism, which is not verified on out-of-distribution sampled latents. No load-bearing self-citation was found: the sole self-citation [27] appears only as a domain reference. The external benchmark comparisons (FID/KID/IS) provide independent evidence for image quality, but they do not measure topology preservation directly. Overall circularity is moderate because the headline structural claim is definitional while the text-conditional generation content is learned.

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

The method assumes a diffeomorphic relationship between template and target images and relies on standard numerical integration for diffeomorphisms. Several loss weights and guidance scales are free hyperparameters that are not reported.

free parameters (5)
  • sigma (intensity dissimilarity weight) = not reported
    Controls the trade-off between image matching and deformation smoothness in Eq. (3); no value is given.
  • lambda (latent reconstruction weight) = not reported
    Weights the reconstruction term in Eq. (8); no value is given.
  • r (joint loss weight) = not reported
    Combines registration and diffusion losses in the total loss; no value is given.
  • delta_I and delta_T (guidance scales) = not reported
    Used in classifier-free guidance in Eq. (9); no values are given.
  • diffusion variance schedule = [0.0...1.0)
    A fixed hyperparameter for the diffusion noise schedule; reported but not described in detail.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Objects of a generic class can be described as deformed versions of a template.
    Underlies the choice of diffeomorphic deformation as the generative mechanism, stated in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Template-target training pairs share consistent object topology.
    Explicitly stated as a current limitation in Section 5; if false, the registration cannot capture the change.
  • standard math The stationary velocity field and scaling-and-squaring integration produce an accurate diffeomorphism.
    Standard result in LDDMM literature, but numerical accuracy depends on implementation, invoked in Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption CLIP text embeddings capture the clinically relevant variables such as age and diagnosis.
    The text encoder is pre-trained and not fine-tuned; its embeddings may not align with fine-grained medical semantics, used in Section 3.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TPIE: Topology-Preserved Image Editing With Text Instructions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELSJKL4C

@misc{pith2026241116714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TPIE: Topology-Preserved Image Editing With Text Instructions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELSJKL4C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16714}
}
read the original abstract

Preserving topological structures is important in real-world applications, particularly in sensitive domains such as healthcare and medicine, where the correctness of human anatomy is critical. However, most existing image editing models focus on manipulating intensity and texture features, often overlooking object geometry within images. To address this issue, this paper introduces a novel method, Topology-Preserved Image Editing with text instructions (TPIE), that for the first time ensures the topology and geometry remaining intact in edited images through text-guided generative diffusion models. More specifically, our method treats newly generated samples as deformable variations of a given input template, allowing for controllable and structure-preserving edits. Our proposed TPIE framework consists of two key modules: (i) an autoencoder-based registration network that learns latent representations of object transformations, parameterized by velocity fields, from pairwise training images; and (ii) a novel latent conditional geometric diffusion (LCDG) model efficiently capturing the data distribution of learned transformation features conditioned on custom-defined text instructions. We validate TPIE on a diverse set of 2D and 3D images and compare them with state-of-the-art image editing approaches. Experimental results show that our method outperforms other baselines in generating more realistic images with well-preserved topology. Our code will be made publicly available on Github.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16714 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of image samples generated by a state-of-the-art (SOTA) model - InstructPix2Pix (IP2P) [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of generated images deformed with sampled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An overview of our proposed TPIE framework. There are two key components in the presented TPIE: (i) a latent representation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A comparison of our method TPIE with all fine-tuned baselines. Left to right: given template images, target images, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) A confidence map showing the lower/upper bound and confidence interval (regions with 95% of ideal growth patterns) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sur la g ´eom´etrie diff ´erentielle des groupes de lie de dimension infinie et ses applications `a l’hydrodynamique des fluides parfaits

    Vladimir Arnold. Sur la g ´eom´etrie diff ´erentielle des groupes de lie de dimension infinie et ses applications `a l’hydrodynamique des fluides parfaits. In Annales de l’institut Fourier, pages 319–361, 1966. 2

    work page 1966

  2. [2]

    A log-euclidean framework for statis- tics on diffeomorphisms

    Vincent Arsigny, Olivier Commowick, Xavier Pennec, and Nicholas Ayache. A log-euclidean framework for statis- tics on diffeomorphisms. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2006: 9th Inter- national Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 1-6,

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    An artifi- cial neural network for spatio-temporal bipolar patterns: Ap- plication to phoneme classification

    Les Atlas, Toshiteru Homma, and Robert Marks. An artifi- cial neural network for spatio-temporal bipolar patterns: Ap- plication to phoneme classification. In Neural information processing systems, 1987. 8

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    Symmetric diffeomorphic image registration with cross-correlation: evaluating automated labeling of el- derly and neurodegenerative brain

    Brian B Avants, Charles L Epstein, Murray Grossman, and James C Gee. Symmetric diffeomorphic image registration with cross-correlation: evaluating automated labeling of el- derly and neurodegenerative brain. Medical image analysis, 12(1):26–41, 2008. 2, 3

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Synthetic data from diffusion models improves imagenet classification

    Shekoofeh Azizi, Simon Kornblith, Chitwan Saharia, Mo- hammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Synthetic data from diffusion models improves imagenet classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08466, 2023. 2

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Computing large deformation metric mappings via geodesic flows of diffeomorphisms

    M Faisal Beg, Michael I Miller, Alain Trouv ´e, and Laurent Younes. Computing large deformation metric mappings via geodesic flows of diffeomorphisms. International journal of computer vision, 61:139–157, 2005. 2, 3

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Demystifying mmd gans

    Mikołaj Bi ´nkowski, Danica J Sutherland, Michael Arbel, and Arthur Gretton. Demystifying mmd gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01401, 2018. 6

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis,

    Andrew Brock, Jeff Donahue, and Karen Simonyan. Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis,

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A. Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions,

  2. [10]

    Fan- tasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high- quality text-to-3d content creation

    Rui Chen, Yongwei Chen, Ningxin Jiao, and Kui Jia. Fan- tasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high- quality text-to-3d content creation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 22246–22256, 2023. 2

    2023

  3. [11]

    Faste- dit: Fast text-guided single-image editing via semantic- aware diffusion fine-tuning, 2024

    Zhi Chen, Zecheng Zhao, Yadan Luo, and Zi Huang. Faste- dit: Fast text-guided single-image editing via semantic- aware diffusion fine-tuning, 2024. 6

    2024

  4. [12]

    Conditional diffusion models for semantic 3d medical image synthesis

    Zolnamar Dorjsembe, Hsing-Kuo Pao, Sodtavilan Odonchimed, and Furen Xiao. Conditional diffusion models for semantic 3d medical image synthesis. Authorea Preprints, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [13]

    Sigmoid- weighted linear units for neural network 368 function ap- proximation in reinforcement learning, nov

    Stefan Elfwing, Eiji Uchibe, and Kenji Doya. Sigmoid- weighted linear units for neural network 368 function ap- proximation in reinforcement learning, nov. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.03118, 369, 2017. 6

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Computational anatomy: An emerging discipline

    Ulf Grenander and Michael I Miller. Computational anatomy: An emerging discipline. Quarterly of applied mathematics, 56(4):617–694, 1998. 2

    1998

  7. [15]

    Lungren, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon

    Yu Gu, Jianwei Yang, Naoto Usuyama, Chunyuan Li, Sheng Zhang, Matthew P. Lungren, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. Biomedjourney: Counterfactual biomedical image generation by instruction-learning from multimodal patient journeys, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [16]

    Topodif- fusionnet: A topology-aware diffusion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16646, 2024

    Saumya Gupta, Dimitris Samaras, and Chao Chen. Topodif- fusionnet: A topology-aware diffusion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16646, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control, 2022

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control, 2022. 2

    2022

  10. [18]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017. 6

    2017

  11. [19]

    Diffeo- morphic autoencoders for lddmm atlas building

    Jacob Hinkle, David Womble, and Hong-Jun Yoon. Diffeo- morphic autoencoders for lddmm atlas building. 2018. 3

    2018

  12. [20]

    Lagomorph

    Jacob D Hinkle. Lagomorph. Technical report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), 2018. 3

    2018

  13. [21]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 4

    2020

  14. [22]

    Puzzlefusion: unleashing the power of diffusion models for spatial puzzle solving

    Sepidehsadat Sepid Hossieni, Mohammad Amin Shabani, Saghar Irandoust, and Yasutaka Furukawa. Puzzlefusion: unleashing the power of diffusion models for spatial puzzle solving. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  15. [23]

    Topology- aware latent diffusion for 3d shape generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17603, 2024

    Jiangbei Hu, Ben Fei, Baixin Xu, Fei Hou, Weidong Yang, Shengfa Wang, Na Lei, Chen Qian, and Ying He. Topology- aware latent diffusion for 3d shape generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17603, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Topology-preserving deep image segmentation

    Xiaoling Hu, Fuxin Li, Dimitris Samaras, and Chao Chen. Topology-preserving deep image segmentation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019. 2

    2019

  17. [25]

    Dreamtime: An improved opti- mization strategy for diffusion-guided 3d generation

    Yukun Huang, Jianan Wang, Yukai Shi, Boshi Tang, Xian- biao Qi, and Lei Zhang. Dreamtime: An improved opti- mization strategy for diffusion-guided 3d generation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2023. 2

    2023

  18. [26]

    Spatial transformer networks

    Max Jaderberg, Karen Simonyan, Andrew Zisserman, et al. Spatial transformer networks. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 28, 2015. 3

    2015

  19. [27]

    Sadir: shape-aware diffusion models for 3d image recon- struction

    Nivetha Jayakumar, Tonmoy Hossain, and Miaomiao Zhang. Sadir: shape-aware diffusion models for 3d image recon- struction. In International Workshop on Shape in Medical Imaging, pages 287–300. Springer, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Unbiased diffeomorphic atlas construction for com- putational anatomy

    Sarang Joshi, Brad Davis, Matthieu Jomier, and Guido Gerig. Unbiased diffeomorphic atlas construction for com- putational anatomy. NeuroImage, 23:S151–S160, 2004. 2

    2004

  21. [29]

    Analyzing and improving the image quality of stylegan, 2020

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Analyzing and improving the image quality of stylegan, 2020. 2

    2020

  22. [30]

    Imagic: 9 Text-based real image editing with diffusion models

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. Imagic: 9 Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6007–6017, 2023. 2

    2023

  23. [31]

    Diffusemorph: Unsupervised deformable image registration using diffusion model

    Boah Kim, Inhwa Han, and Jong Chul Ye. Diffusemorph: Unsupervised deformable image registration using diffusion model. In European conference on computer vision , pages 347–364. Springer, 2022. 3

    2022

  24. [32]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2017. 6

    2017

  25. [33]

    Wilds: A benchmark of in-the- wild distribution shifts

    Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie, Marvin Zhang, Akshay Balsubra- mani, Weihua Hu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Richard Lanas Phillips, Irena Gao, et al. Wilds: A benchmark of in-the- wild distribution shifts. In International conference on machine learning...

    2021

  26. [34]

    LaMontagne, Tammie LS

    Pamela J. LaMontagne, Tammie LS. Benzinger, John C. Morris, Sarah Keefe, Russ Hornbeck, Chengjie Xiong, Eliz- abeth Grant, Jason Hassenstab, Krista Moulder, Andrei G. Vlassenko, Marcus E. Raichle, Carlos Cruchaga, and Daniel Marcus. Oasis-3: Longitudinal neuroimaging, clinical...

    2019

  27. [35]

    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 Pro- cessing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  28. [36]

    Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming-Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Rec- tifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models

    Andrew L Maas, Awni Y Hannun, Andrew Y Ng, et al. Rec- tifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models. In Proc. icml, page 3. Atlanta, GA, 2013. 6

    2013

  30. [38]

    Diffusion models beat gans on topology optimization

    Franc ¸ois Maz´e and Faez Ahmed. Diffusion models beat gans on topology optimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI con- ference on artificial intelligence, pages 9108–9116, 2023. 2

    2023

  31. [39]

    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, 5, 6

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Computational anatomy: shape, growth, and atrophy comparison via diffeomorphisms

    Michael I Miller. Computational anatomy: shape, growth, and atrophy comparison via diffeomorphisms. NeuroImage, 23:S19–S33, 2004. 2

    2004

  33. [41]

    Geodesic shooting for computational anatomy

    Michael I Miller, Alain Trouv ´e, and Laurent Younes. Geodesic shooting for computational anatomy. Journal of mathematical imaging and vision, 24(2):209–228, 2006. 2

    2006

  34. [42]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image classification, 2023

    Soumik Mukhopadhyay, Matthew Gwilliam, Vatsal Agar- wal, Namitha Padmanabhan, Archana Swaminathan, Srinidhi Hegde, Tianyi Zhou, and Abhinav Shrivastava. Diffusion models beat gans on image classification, 2023. 2

    2023

  35. [43]

    Visual instruction inversion: Image editing via image prompting

    Thao Nguyen, Yuheng Li, Utkarsh Ojha, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction inversion: Image editing via image prompting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  36. [44]

    Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models, 2022

    Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models, 2022. 2

    2022

  37. [45]

    Numerical optimiza- tion

    Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J Wright. Numerical optimiza- tion. Springer, 1999. 5

    1999

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021. 2, 4

    2021

  40. [48]

    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. 2

    2021

  41. [49]

    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. 2

    2022

  42. [50]

    Within-subject template estimation for unbi- ased longitudinal image analysis

    Martin Reuter, Nicholas J Schmansky, H Diana Rosas, and Bruce Fischl. Within-subject template estimation for unbi- ased longitudinal image analysis. Neuroimage, 61(4):1402– 1418, 2012. 2

    2012

  43. [51]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models, 2022

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models, 2022. 2, 5

    2022

  44. [52]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

  45. [53]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation 2023

    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 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.12242 , 2022. 6

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    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

  47. [55]

    Improved techniques for training gans, 2016

    Tim Salimans, Ian Goodfellow, Wojciech Zaremba, Vicki Cheung, Alec Radford, and Xi Chen. Improved techniques for training gans, 2016. 6

    2016

  48. [56]

    Topology preserving compositionality for robust medical image segmentation

    Ainkaran Santhirasekaram, Mathias Winkler, Andrea Rock- all, and Ben Glocker. Topology preserving compositionality for robust medical image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 543–552, 2023. 2

    2023

  49. [57]

    Rethinking the in- ception architecture for computer vision, 2015

    Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jonathon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. Rethinking the in- ception architecture for computer vision, 2015. 6

    2015

  50. [58]

    An easy-to-setup 3d phenotyping platform 10 for komatsuna dataset

    Hideaki Uchiyama, Shunsuke Sakurai, Masashi Mishima, Daisaku Arita, Takashi Okayasu, Atsushi Shimada, and Rin- ichiro Taniguchi. An easy-to-setup 3d phenotyping platform 10 for komatsuna dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) W...

  51. [59]

    Unitune: Text-driven image editing by fine tuning a diffusion model on a single image

    Dani Valevski, Matan Kalman, Eyal Molad, Eyal Segalis, Yossi Matias, and Yaniv Leviathan. Unitune: Text-driven image editing by fine tuning a diffusion model on a single image. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 42(4):1–10,

  52. [60]

    Instructedit: Improving automatic masks for diffusion- based image editing with user instructions

    Qian Wang, Biao Zhang, Michael Birsak, and Peter Wonka. Instructedit: Improving automatic masks for diffusion- based image editing with user instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18047, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Multi-modal volume registration by maximization of mutual information

    William M Wells III, Paul Viola, Hideki Atsumi, Shin Naka- jima, and Ron Kikinis. Multi-modal volume registration by maximization of mutual information. Medical image analy- sis, 1(1):35–51, 1996. 3

    1996

  54. [62]

    Medsegdiff: Medical image segmentation with diffusion probabilistic model

    Junde Wu, Rao Fu, Huihui Fang, Yu Zhang, Yehui Yang, Haoyi Xiong, Huiying Liu, and Yanwu Xu. Medsegdiff: Medical image segmentation with diffusion probabilistic model. In Medical Imaging with Deep Learning , pages 1623–1639. PMLR, 2024. 2

    2024

  55. [63]

    Scaling autoregressive models for content-rich text-to-image generation, 2022

    Jiahui Yu, Yuanzhong Xu, Jing Yu Koh, Thang Luong, Gun- jan Baid, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Alexander Ku, Yin- fei Yang, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Ben Hutchinson, Wei Han, Zarana Parekh, Xin Li, Han Zhang, Jason Baldridge, and Yonghui Wu. Scaling autoregressive models for content...

    2022

  56. [64]

    Surf-d: Generating high-quality surfaces of arbitrary topologies using diffusion models

    Zhengming Yu, Zhiyang Dou, Xiaoxiao Long, Cheng Lin, Zekun Li, Yuan Liu, Norman M ¨uller, Taku Komura, Marc Habermann, Christian Theobalt, et al. Surf-d: Generating high-quality surfaces of arbitrary topologies using diffusion models. In European Conference on Computer Vision,...

    2025

  57. [65]

    Clear: Ro- bust context-guided generative lighting estimation for mobile augmented reality

    Yiqin Zhao, Mallesham Dasari, and Tian Guo. Clear: Ro- bust context-guided generative lighting estimation for mobile augmented reality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02179, 2024. 2 11

    2024 arXiv

  58. [2006]

    Springer, 2006

    Proceedings, Part I 9, pages 924–931. Springer, 2006. 3

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.