Trustworthy Text-to-Image Diffusion Models: A Timely and Focused Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Text-to-Image (T2I) Diffusion Models (DMs) have garnered widespread attention for their impressive advancements in image generation. However, their growing popularity has raised ethical and social concerns related to key non-functional properties of trustworthiness, such as robustness, fairness, security, privacy, factuality, and explainability, similar to those in traditional deep learning (DL) tasks. Conventional approaches for studying trustworthiness in DL tasks often fall short due to the unique characteristics of T2I DMs, e.g., the multi-modal nature. Given the challenge, recent efforts have been made to develop new methods for investigating trustworthiness in T2I DMs via various means, including falsification, enhancement, verification \& validation and assessment. However, there is a notable lack of in-depth analysis concerning those non-functional properties and means. In this survey, we provide a timely and focused review of the literature on trustworthy T2I DMs, covering a concise-structured taxonomy from the perspectives of property, means, benchmarks and applications. Our review begins with an introduction to essential preliminaries of T2I DMs, and then we summarise key definitions/metrics specific to T2I tasks and analyses the means proposed in recent literature based on these definitions/metrics. Additionally, we review benchmarks and domain applications of T2I DMs. Finally, we highlight the gaps in current research, discuss the limitations of existing methods, and propose future research directions to advance the development of trustworthy T2I DMs. Furthermore, we keep up-to-date updates in this field to track the latest developments and maintain our GitHub repository at: https://github.com/wellzline/Trustworthy_T2I_DMs
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".