Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multitwine: Multi-Object Compositing with Text and Layout Control

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Multitwine introduces the first generative model that composites multiple objects into a scene simultaneously, with text and bounding-box layout as controls.

desk verdict Genuinely new task and a sensible method, but the evaluation is too thin to support the state-of-the-art claim; still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05165 v1 pith:LGR2PPNS submitted 2025-02-07 cs.CV

Gemma Canet Tarrés , Zhe Lin , Zhifei Zhang , He Zhang , Andrew Gilbert , John Collomosse , Soo Ye Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords multi-objectcompositingtext-guidededitinglayoutcontroldiffusionmodelsubject-drivengenerationidentitydisentanglementdatasetpipelinegroundedcaptions
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

The paper claims to have built the first diffusion-based model that can insert two or more objects into an image at the same time, guided jointly by a text prompt describing the interaction and by per-object bounding boxes. The core idea is to interleave each object's visual embedding with the text tokens that refer to it, forming a multimodal condition that lets the model preserve identity while reposing objects and harmonizing lighting. To train this, the authors assemble a pipeline that uses vision-language models to caption and ground images from three sources: video frames, in-the-wild images, and manually collected human-object data. A joint training schedule that alternates between multi-object compositing and subject-driven customization produces a single model that performs both tasks at state-of-the-art level. The paper also demonstrates that simultaneous compositing outperforms sequential single-object insertion when objects must interact, such as when two bounding boxes overlap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a multimodal embedding formed by concatenating each object's DINO v2 image embedding, passed through a content adaptor, after the text tokens of the caption that are grounded to that object. This embedding is fed via cross-attention into a Stable Diffusion 1.5 inpainting U-Net, along with a layout mask that encodes per-object bounding boxes, their overlap, the inpainting region, and the background. Two auxiliary losses, the cross-attention loss $\mathcal{L}_c$ and self-attention loss $\mathcal{L}_s$, force attention maps to respect object segmentation and discourage visual feature leakage between objects. At inference, cross-attention scores for each object's embeddings are masked with that object's bounding box, further reinforcing layout adherence and identity separation.

What would settle it

Build a test set of 50 prompts that demand reposing (e.g., 'person hugging a dog', 'man playing guitar') using input object images in neutral, static poses, and ask human raters whether the generated image shows the described interaction. If the model fails to produce the interaction in a clear majority of these cases, the claimed capability of simultaneous reposing and complex interaction would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Simultaneous multi-object compositing with text and layout control is achievable in a single diffusion pass, and it beats sequential single-object compositing for scenes where objects must interact. By concatenating each object's DINO-v2 image embedding after the grounded text tokens that name that object, the model learns to keep identities separate while allowing reposing and the generation of auxiliary props implied by the action (for example, a selfie stick for 'taking a selfie'). Two attention-based losses, a cross-attention loss aligning each object's attention maps to its segmentation and a self-attention loss suppressing cross-object attention, prevent identity leakage. Training simultaneously on compositing and customization yields better text-visual balance, giving a single model that matches or exceeds specialized baselines on both tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The model's performance rests on the accuracy of the automatically generated training data, particularly the vision-language-model captions and grounding masks, as well as the threshold that video frames with DINO similarity of at least 0.8 show the same object instance; if those labels are wrong, the model will learn incorrect interactions and identities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-object scene editing becomes a one-shot operation: an artist can drop in several object photos, specify boxes, and describe the interaction in text, without chaining separate single-object insertions.
  • Interactions requiring reposing (e.g., hugging, playing guitar) are handled naturally in a single generation, removing the copy-paste artifacts of sequential compositing.
  • The model can generate implied props and supporting elements (a leash, pouring liquid) even when they were not in any input image, which is a useful emergent behavior for scene completion.
  • Joint training on compositing and customization yields a single model that can both insert objects into real scenes and generate entirely new scenes containing those objects from a text prompt and layout.
  • The automated data pipeline offers a template for other conditional generation tasks that need aligned multimodal training data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The attention-masking trick for the [EoT] token suggests that a similar decoding-time control could be applied to existing single-object compositing models to reduce background leakage, outside the paper's training setup.
  • If the per-object attention masking were scaled to feed each object embedding separately instead of concatenating all into one long sequence, the model could plausibly handle many more objects than the demonstrated three or four, at the cost of some cross-object coherence.
  • The paper's reliance on vision-language captions and grounding is a quality bottleneck; a testable extension would be to bootstrap those labels from the model's own outputs in a self-training loop to improve interaction realism.
  • Because customization and compositing prove complementary in training, other auxiliary tasks (such as harmonization-only or relighting-only objectives) might be folded into the same schedule to further improve the balance between text and image fidelity.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Multitwine, a diffusion-based model for simultaneous multi-object compositing guided by text prompts and object bounding boxes. Built on a Stable Diffusion 1.5 inpainting backbone, the model takes multiple object images, a background, and a layout mask, and fuses object and text embeddings via cross-attention. The authors introduce attention-based losses to reduce identity leakage, jointly train with a customization task, and mask cross-attention scores at inference to enforce layout. They also present a data-generation pipeline that combines video relation annotations, in-the-wild images with VLM-generated captions and grounding, and manually collected human-object interaction data. The model is evaluated on DreamBooth for single-object compositing, on a self-created MultiComp set for two-object compositing, on the MultiBench two-entity subset for customization, and through user studies. The central claims are that this is the first model for simultaneous multi-object compositing and that it achieves state-of-the-art performance in both compositing and subject-driven generation.

Significance. If the claims are established, the paper would make a meaningful advance over single-object compositing methods by enabling coherent multi-object interactions, reposing, and automatic generation of supporting props within a single diffusion pass. The proposed data-generation pipeline and the joint training of compositing and customization are potentially useful contributions. The paper ships a substantial amount of qualitative evaluation, ablations, and user studies, and the architectural choices (multimodal embeddings, attention-based disentanglement losses) are well motivated. However, the evidence for the headline state-of-the-art claims is currently fragile: the main compositing benchmark is self-created and not released, the reported margins over baselines are small or negative on some metrics, no uncertainty or significance measures are reported, and the evaluation metrics overlap in design with the training objectives and data-filtering criteria. The core idea is plausible and likely fixable, but the quantitative support needs substantial strengthening before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1 and Supplementary Section 2] The state-of-the-art claim for multi-object compositing is not established by the reported numbers. MultiComp is a self-built test set of 118 pairs in the main paper but 119 pairs in the supplementary material, and it is not released; the 5-iteration expansion to 595 images is described only in the supplementary. The margins over AnyDoor are as small as 0.005 CLIP-I in the non-overlap split (0.768 vs. 0.763), and on DINO in the same split the proposed method is below AnyDoor (0.579 vs. 0.593). No confidence intervals, per-prompt variance, or paired significance tests are provided. Given these small differences, the statement in the abstract and Section 5 that the model achieves state-of-the-art performance is not yet supported. I ask the authors to report paired significance tests across the five iterations and across prompts, to reconcile the 118/119 discrepancy, and to release the test set or at least the prompts and object crops for reproducibility.
  2. [Section 3.4 and Table 1] There is a partial circularity between the training-data filtering criterion and the identity-preservation metric. The video-based training pairs are kept only when the DINO-v2 similarity between object views is at least 0.8 (Section 3.4), and identity preservation is later measured with the same DINO-v2 feature extractor (Section 4, Table 1). This does not by itself invalidate the results, but it means the reported DINO gains may partly reflect that the model was trained on pairs that are DINO-similar by construction. To make the evaluation more robust, the authors should report at least one additional identity metric that is not used in data curation (for example, an appearance-retrieval metric or human identity ratings), or should ablate the DINO threshold and show that the conclusions are insensitive to it.
  3. [Section 3.4] The data-generation pipeline rests on VLM-produced captions and grounding, but no quantitative validation of these annotations is provided. The paper states that LLaVA and ViP-LLaVA generate captions and that GroundingDINO provides grounding, and it relies on these to produce aligned training pairs, yet there is no human evaluation of caption accuracy, no measurement of grounding box-to-word correspondence, and no filtering statistics (e.g., how many pairs were discarded due to low confidence or mismatched entities). Since the training signal for text-layout-object alignment is entirely dependent on this automatically generated data, the authors should provide at least a small-scale human validation of caption-grounding quality, or report the agreement rate of ViP-LLaVA entity identification against the manually collected set.
  4. [Section 4.1, User Studies and Supplementary Section 3.3] The user-study evidence is reported only as majority-consensus percentages, with no information about the number of participants per study, the distribution of votes, or inter-rater agreement. The supplementary states that 'at least five users rate each image pair' and that results are aggregated via majority consensus, but this does not convey whether the preferences are consistent or driven by a few outliers. Moreover, no confidence intervals or statistical tests are reported for the user-study percentages. I request the authors to report the full vote counts, participant numbers, and a simple significance test (e.g., a Wilcoxon signed-rank test over images or a bootstrap interval) for the preference percentages.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4] The text says 'we keep DINO score similarity for each object’s views above a threshold (MSE ≥ 0.8)', but DINO score is a cosine similarity, not an MSE. Please clarify the exact distance or similarity formulation used.
  2. [Table 1] The claim in the text that 'our model outperforms all compared models when composited objects interact' is consistent with the overlap split, but the non-overlap split shows mixed results (lower DINO than AnyDoor). Please state more precisely where the method is and is not superior.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The phrase 'state-of-the-art performance in both tasks' is stronger than what Table 2 supports: on the global CLIP-I and DINO metrics for MultiBench, the proposed method (0.688, 0.454) is below UNIMO-G (0.699, 0.485), and the DreamBooth CLIP-I is below IMPRINT (0.803 vs. 0.830). Please temper the conclusion or add statistical evidence for the claimed parity.
  4. [Section 3.1] Equation (1) uses the notation x ∈ Si where Si is defined as the segmentation map of Oi, but x is described as a pixel coordinate; please clarify the indexing and how the segmentation map is rasterized in the attention-mask computation.
  5. [Supplementary Section 2] The supplementary says the MultiComp set consists of 119 paired data entries, while the main paper Section 4 says 118; please make the numbers consistent and state which count is correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the model's components and losses are not definitionally tied to the reported evaluation metrics; the SOTA claim's weakness is statistical rigor, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation claim that reduces to its inputs. The identity-preservation losses Lc and Ls are defined over cross-attention and self-attention maps (Eqs. 1 and 2), not over the DINO/CLIP-I metrics used for evaluation; they are training regularizers, so there is no equation-level identity between the optimized objective and the measured score. The DINO-similarity threshold used to select training views in Section 3.4 is a data filter, not a fitted parameter, and it is applied to training pairs rather than to the held-out MultiComp or DreamBooth test sets. The customization auxiliary task is trained jointly, but MultiBench is used only for evaluation. Self-citations to ObjectStitch and Thinking Outside the BBox supply an architectural component and a baseline, respectively, but the main novelty claim does not rest on those citations, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The strongest concern in the paper is that the state-of-the-art claim is supported by a self-built 118/119-pair test set with small margins and no confidence intervals; that is a correctness and evidence concern, not circularity. Therefore no circular step can be identified by the paper's own equations or by any self-citation chain.

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

The model is assembled from pretrained components (SD1.5, DINO, CLIP, LLaVA, ViP-LLaVA, GroundingDINO) and several manually chosen hyperparameters. The central claim depends on these external tools working as intended, and on the automated metrics aligning with human judgments.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (cross-attention loss weight) = 1000
    Set to 1e3 as a fixed weight for Lc in Equation (3); chosen by the authors without sensitivity analysis, affects identity disentanglement.
  • beta (self-attention loss weight) = 1
    Set to 1, balancing Ls; no ablation on this value is reported.
  • modality drop probability = 0.3
    Text and image inputs each dropped with 30% probability during training to encourage robustness; chosen by hand.
  • customization joint-training probability = 0.5
    With 50% probability the model trains on full-image customization instead of compositing; this ratio directly shapes the text-image balance claimed as a contribution.
  • DINO similarity threshold = >= 0.8
    Used to filter video frames for identity-consistent object views (Section 3.4); the threshold is arbitrary and not validated.
  • learning rate = 4e-6
    Adam optimizer setting; standard fine-tuning value, not specifically tuned for this task.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion 1.5 provides a strong prior for natural and diverse image generation.
    The model is built on the SD1.5 backbone and assumes that this pretrained diffusion prior supports the new compositing task.
  • domain assumption DINOv2 features are a reliable measure of subject identity for compositing.
    DINO embeddings are used both for image encoding of objects and for identity evaluation (DINO score); no independent identity metric is used.
  • domain assumption VLM-generated captions and grounding from LLaVA and ViP-LLaVA are accurate enough for training.
    The entire training data pipeline in Section 3.4 depends on these models to generate captions and correlate text tokens with object regions; errors would propagate to the model.
  • domain assumption The attention-based losses Lc and Ls can disentangle object identities without harming text alignment.
    The paper assumes these losses transfer from multi-subject generation (citing [8]) to the compositing setting; the claim is supported only by ablations on the small MultiComp set.
  • domain assumption CLIP-Score and DINO-Score reflect the quality of compositing and identity preservation.
    The evaluation in Section 4 relies on these automated metrics, which are known to be imperfect proxies for perceptual quality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multitwine: Multi-Object Compositing with Text and Layout Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGR2PPNS

@misc{pith2026250205165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multitwine: Multi-Object Compositing with Text and Layout Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGR2PPNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05165}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce the first generative model capable of simultaneous multi-object compositing, guided by both text and layout. Our model allows for the addition of multiple objects within a scene, capturing a range of interactions from simple positional relations (e.g., next to, in front of) to complex actions requiring reposing (e.g., hugging, playing guitar). When an interaction implies additional props, like `taking a selfie', our model autonomously generates these supporting objects. By jointly training for compositing and subject-driven generation, also known as customization, we achieve a more balanced integration of textual and visual inputs for text-driven object compositing. As a result, we obtain a versatile model with state-of-the-art performance in both tasks. We further present a data generation pipeline leveraging visual and language models to effortlessly synthesize multimodal, aligned training data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05165 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our model allows simultaneous compositing of several objects with text and layout control, offering harmonious [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of simultaneous vs. sequential object com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model Architecture. Our model consists of: (i) A Stable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual comparison to Generative Object Compositing models [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: User Studies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison of our multi-object compositing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of the effect of Lc, Ls. Without attention￾based losses, our model merges objects with similar semantics or visual traits. Cross-attention loss Lc improves identity separa￾tion, but some leakage remains (e.g., cat ears on dog and teapot). Adding self-atte…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Training Data Generation from Video Data. Paired train [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Training Data Generation from Image Data via Top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Training Data Generation from Image Data via Bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Training Data Generation from Manually Collected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison of our Multi-Object Compositing Method and State-of-the-Art Generative Object Compositing Methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison of our Customization Method and State-of-the-Art Subject-Driven Generation Methods [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: User Study on ‘Compositing Quality’. Screenshot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: User Study on ‘Objects Alignment’. Screenshot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: User Study on ‘Background Alignment’. Screenshot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visual examples for each ablation of the model. From left to right: (i) inputs (background, layout, objects and text), (ii) no [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visual examples for different applications of our model. Our model can operate on different modes such as: (i) layout-driven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Visual Examples for Multi-Object Compositing ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. BlenderFusion: 3D-Grounded Visual Editing and Generative Compositing

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dual-stream diffusion model trained with Blender-render conditioning, source masking, and object jittering performs 3D-grounded multi-object editing and compositing better than existing baselines on three video datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cross-image attention for zero- shot appearance transfer

    Yuval Alaluf, Daniel Garibi, Or Patashnik, Hadar Averbuch- Elor, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Cross-image attention for zero- shot appearance transfer. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Confer- ence Papers, pages 1–12, 2024. 4

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Men- sch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:23716–23736,

  3. [3]

    Vip- llava: Making large multimodal models understand arbitrary visual prompts

    Mu Cai, Haotian Liu, Siva Karthik Mustikovela, Gregory P Meyer, Yuning Chai, Dennis Park, and Yong Jae Lee. Vip- llava: Making large multimodal models understand arbitrary visual prompts. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12914– 12923, 2024. 5, 1, 2

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Masactrl: Tuning-free mu- tual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing

    Mingdeng Cao, Xintao Wang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, Xi- aohu Qie, and Yinqiang Zheng. Masactrl: Tuning-free mu- tual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 22560–22570, 2023. 4

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Re-imagen: Retrieval-augmented text-to-image gen- erator

    Wenhu Chen, Hexiang Hu, Chitwan Saharia, and William W Cohen. Re-imagen: Retrieval-augmented text-to-image gen- erator. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14491, 2022. 3

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Subject-driven text-to-image generation via apprenticeship learning

    Wenhu Chen, Hexiang Hu, Yandong Li, Nataniel Ruiz, Xuhui Jia, Ming-Wei Chang, and William W Cohen. Subject-driven text-to-image generation via apprenticeship learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 2, 3

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level im- age customization

    Xi Chen, Lianghua Huang, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Hengshuang Zhao. Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level im- age customization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09481, 2023. 2, 5, 6, 7, 4

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Be yourself: Bounded attention for multi-subject text-to-image generation

    Omer Dahary, Or Patashnik, Kfir Aberman, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Be yourself: Bounded attention for multi-subject text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16990, 2(5), 2024. 4

    arXiv 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Dreamllm: Synergistic multimodal com- prehension and creation

    Runpei Dong, Chunrui Han, Yuang Peng, Zekun Qi, Zheng Ge, Jinrong Yang, Liang Zhao, Jianjian Sun, Hongyu Zhou, Haoran Wei, et al. Dreamllm: Synergistic multimodal com- prehension and creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11499,

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Palm- e: An embodied multimodal language model

    Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. Palm- e: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Scaling recti- fied flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas M ¨uller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. Scaling recti- fied flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Forty-first International Conference on Mach...

    2024

  4. [12]

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

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patash- nik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen- Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022. 4

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation met- ric for image captioning

    Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation met- ric for image captioning. In Proceedings of the Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7514–7528, 2021. 5

    2021

  7. [15]

    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. 2

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Rendering synthetic objects into legacy photographs

    Kevin Karsch, Varsha Hedau, David Forsyth, and Derek Hoiem. Rendering synthetic objects into legacy photographs. ACM Transactions on graphics (TOG), 30(6):1–12, 2011. 2

    2011

  9. [17]

    3d object manipulation in a single photograph using stock 3d models

    Natasha Kholgade, Tomas Simon, Alexei Efros, and Yaser Sheikh. 3d object manipulation in a single photograph using stock 3d models. ACM Transactions on graphics (TOG), 33 (4):1–12, 2014. 2

    2014

  10. [18]

    Gen- erating images with multimodal language models

    Jing Yu Koh, Daniel Fried, and Russ R Salakhutdinov. Gen- erating images with multimodal language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 3

    2024

  11. [19]

    Open images v5 text annotation and yet another mask text spotter

    Ilya Krylov, Sergei Nosov, and Vladislav Sovrasov. Open images v5 text annotation and yet another mask text spotter. In Asian Conference on Machine Learning, pages 379–389. PMLR, 2021. 5

    2021

  12. [20]

    Putting people in their place: Affordance-aware hu- man insertion into scenes

    Sumith Kulal, Tim Brooks, Alex Aiken, Jiajun Wu, Jimei Yang, Jingwan Lu, Alexei A Efros, and Krishna Kumar Singh. Putting people in their place: Affordance-aware hu- man insertion into scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Photo clip art

    Jean-Franc ¸ois Lalonde, Derek Hoiem, Alexei A Efros, Carsten Rother, John Winn, and Antonio Criminisi. Photo clip art. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) , 26(3):3–es,

  14. [22]

    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. 3, 6, 7, 2, 5

    2024

  15. [23]

    Unimo- g: Unified image generation through multimodal conditional diffusion

    Wei Li, Xue Xu, Jiachen Liu, and Xinyan Xiao. Unimo- g: Unified image generation through multimodal conditional diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13388, 2024. 3, 5, 6, 7, 2

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning, 2023. 2, 4, 1

    2023

  17. [25]

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

    Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Qing Jiang, Chunyuan Li, Jianwei Yang, Hang Su, et al. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05499, 2023. 2, 5, 1

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Tf-icon: Diffusion-based training-free cross-domain image composi- tion

    Shilin Lu, Yanzhu Liu, and Adams Wai-Kin Kong. Tf-icon: Diffusion-based training-free cross-domain image composi- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 2294–2305, 2023. 2

    2023

  19. [27]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 5, 1

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kosmos-g: Generating images in context with multimodal large language models

    Xichen Pan, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Zhiliang Peng, Wenhu Chen, and Furu Wei. Kosmos-g: Generating images in context with multimodal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02992, 2023. 3, 5, 6, 7, 2

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    https://pixabay.com/, 2024

    Pixabay. https://pixabay.com/, 2024. 5, 2

    2024

  22. [30]

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

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 2, 8

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Fine-grained entity segmentation

    Lu Qi, Jason Kuen, Weidong Guo, Tiancheng Shen, Jiux- iang Gu, Wenbo Li, Jiaya Jia, Zhe Lin, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Fine-grained entity segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05776, 2022. 4, 5, 1, 2

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    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 supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  25. [33]

    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. 2, 3, 4

    2022

  26. [34]

    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 22500...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Diffuse to choose: Enriching image conditioned inpainting in latent diffusion models for virtual try-all

    Mehmet Saygin Seyfioglu, Karim Bouyarmane, Suren Ku- mar, Amir Tavanaei, and Ismail B Tutar. Diffuse to choose: Enriching image conditioned inpainting in latent diffusion models for virtual try-all. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13795,

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Video visual relation detection

    Xindi Shang, Tongwei Ren, Jingfan Guo, Hanwang Zhang, and Tat-Seng Chua. Video visual relation detection. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia , Mountain View, CA USA, 2017. 4, 1

    2017

  29. [37]

    Annotating objects and relations in user- generated videos

    Xindi Shang, Donglin Di, Junbin Xiao, Yu Cao, Xun Yang, and Tat-Seng Chua. Annotating objects and relations in user- generated videos. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, pages 279–287. ACM, 2019. 4, 1

    2019

  30. [38]

    Instant- booth: Personalized text-to-image generation without test- time finetuning

    Jing Shi, Wei Xiong, Zhe Lin, and Hyun Joon Jung. Instant- booth: Personalized text-to-image generation without test- time finetuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03411, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ob- jectstitch: Generative object compositing

    Yizhi Song, Zhifei Zhang, Zhe Lin, Scott Cohen, Brian Price, Jianming Zhang, Soo Ye Kim, and Daniel Aliaga. Ob- jectstitch: Generative object compositing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.00932, 2022. 2, 3

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Imprint: Generative object compositing by learning identity-preserving representation

    Yizhi Song, Zhifei Zhang, Zhe Lin, Scott Cohen, Brian Price, Jianming Zhang, Soo Ye Kim, He Zhang, Wei Xiong, and Daniel Aliaga. Imprint: Generative object compositing by learning identity-preserving representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision ...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Generative pretraining in multi- modality

    Quan Sun, Qiying Yu, Yufeng Cui, Fan Zhang, Xiaosong Zhang, Yueze Wang, Hongcheng Gao, Jingjing Liu, Tiejun Huang, and Xinlong Wang. Generative pretraining in multi- modality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05222, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Generative multimodal mod- els are in-context learners

    Quan Sun, Yufeng Cui, Xiaosong Zhang, Fan Zhang, Qiy- ing Yu, Yueze Wang, Yongming Rao, Jingjing Liu, Tiejun Huang, and Xinlong Wang. Generative multimodal mod- els are in-context learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , ...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Thinking outside the bbox: Un- constrained generative object compositing

    Gemma Canet Tarr ´es, Zhe Lin, Zhifei Zhang, Jianming Zhang, Yizhi Song, Dan Ruta, Andrew Gilbert, John Col- lomosse, and Soo Ye Kim. Thinking outside the bbox: Un- constrained generative object compositing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04559, 2024. 2, 5, 6, 7, 4

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Cogvlm: Visual expert for pretrained language models

    Weihan Wang, Qingsong Lv, Wenmeng Yu, Wenyi Hong, Ji Qi, Yan Wang, Junhui Ji, Zhuoyi Yang, Lei Zhao, Xixuan Song, et al. Cogvlm: Visual expert for pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03079, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Elite: Encoding visual con- cepts into textual embeddings for customized text-to-image generation

    Yuxiang Wei, Yabo Zhang, Zhilong Ji, Jinfeng Bai, Lei Zhang, and Wangmeng Zuo. Elite: Encoding visual con- cepts into textual embeddings for customized text-to-image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15943–15953, 2023. 3

    2023

  38. [46]

    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. Interna- tional Journal of Computer Vision, pages 1–20, 2024. 3, 4

    2024

  39. [47]

    Groundingbooth: Grounding text- to-image customization

    Zhexiao Xiong, Wei Xiong, Jing Shi, He Zhang, Yizhi Song, and Nathan Jacobs. Groundingbooth: Grounding text- to-image customization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08520 ,

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion mod- els

    Binxin Yang, Shuyang Gu, Bo Zhang, Ting Zhang, Xuejin Chen, Xiaoyan Sun, Dong Chen, and Fang Wen. Paint by example: Exemplar-based image editing with diffusion mod- els. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 18381–18391,

  41. [49]

    Customnet: Zero-shot object customization with variable-viewpoints in text-to-image dif- fusion models

    Ziyang Yuan, Mingdeng Cao, Xintao Wang, Zhongang Qi, Chun Yuan, and Ying Shan. Customnet: Zero-shot object customization with variable-viewpoints in text-to-image dif- fusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19784, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Controlcom: Controllable image composition using diffusion model

    Bo Zhang, Yuxuan Duan, Jun Lan, Yan Hong, Huijia Zhu, Weiqiang Wang, and Li Niu. Controlcom: Controllable image composition using diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10040, 2023. 2, 5, 6, 7, 4

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Loco: Locally constrained training-free layout-to-image synthesis

    Peiang Zhao, Han Li, Ruiyang Jin, and S Kevin Zhou. Loco: Locally constrained training-free layout-to-image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12342, 2023. 4 Multitwine: Multi-Object Compositing with Text and Layout Control Supplementary Material

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Can you provide a grammatically correct one-line caption for the relation <object A> <relation> <object B> in the image?

    Training and Testing Data In this section, we provide additional information about the training data generation pipeline proposed in Main Paper Section 3.4 and MultiComp, the multi-object compositing test set introduced in Main Paper Section 4. 1.1. Training Data As detailed i...

  45. [53]

    Figure 4

    and a Semantic Segmentator [31]. Figure 4. Training Data Generation from Manually Collected Data. Paired training data is obtained from a collected dataset containing object images, human images, and images of humans interacting with objects. We leverage a Vision-Language Model

  46. [54]

    used to extract them

    and a Semantic Segmentator [31] to extract segmented objects and corresponding caption with grounding information. used to extract them. This results in two segmented objects along with their associated grounding details from the orig- inal caption. Manually Collected Data We ...

  47. [55]

    Background images are sourced from Pixabay [29], while objects are from Pixabay [29], MultiBench [23], and DreamBooth [34]

    Inference Data Our collected MultiComp set consists of 119 paired data entries, each containing: (i) a background image, (ii) two object images, (iii) object-specific bounding boxes, (iv) an inpainting bounding box encompassing the previous ones, and (v) a descriptive caption ...

  48. [56]

    Further details on user studies can be found in Section 3.3

    Comparison to Existing Methods We provide additional visualizations comparing our model to existing generative object compositing and multi-entity subject-driven generation models in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Further details on user studies can be found in Section 3.3. 3.1. Compar...

  49. [57]

    Without multi-view data ( i.e., video data, manually collected data), the model struggles to prop- erly repose and combine objects to align with the textual description

    Ablation Study Fig 13 shows visual examples of images generated by each ablation of our model (as detailed in Main Paper Table 3) for the same set of inputs. Without multi-view data ( i.e., video data, manually collected data), the model struggles to prop- erly repose and comb...

  50. [58]

    Applications 5.1. Model versatility We demonstrated in Main Paper Fig 9 how, by leveraging the advantages of our joint compositing and customization training, our model can be used for subject-driven inpaint- ing. Additionally, Fig 14 illustrates how the same model can be appl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.