DiffPop: Plausibility‐Guided Object Placement Diffusion for Image Composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we address the problem of plausible object placement for the challenging task of realistic image composition. We propose DiffPop, the first framework that utilizes plausibility‐guided denoising diffusion probabilistic model to learn the scale and spatial relations among multiple objects and the corresponding scene image. First, we train an unguided diffusion model to directly learn the object placement parameters in a self‐supervised manner. Then, we develop a human‐in‐the‐loop pipeline which exploits human labeling on the diffusion‐generated composite images to provide the weak supervision for training a structural plausibility classifier. The classifier is further used to guide the diffusion sampling process towards generating the plausible object placement. Experimental results verify the superiority of our method for producing plausible and diverse composite images on the new Cityscapes‐OP dataset and the public OPA dataset, as well as demonstrate its potential in applications such as data augmentation and multi‐object placement tasks. Our dataset and code will be released.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".