← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

The Blessing of Randomness: SDE Beats ODE in General Diffusion-based Image Editing

Shen Nie, Hanzhong Allan Guo, Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Chenyu Zheng, Chongxuan Li

generative modelsDiffusion modelsStochastic differential equationsImage draggingImage editingScore-based models
97.90100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.33)
94.00100
Mimo
band ≈ ±24 pct pts (from σ = 0.49)
98.30100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — SDE is superior and verstile in image editing and SDE-Drag is powerful to drag open-set images

Abstract

We present a unified probabilistic formulation for diffusion-based image editing, where a latent variable is edited in a task-specific manner and generally deviates from the corresponding marginal distribution induced by the original stochastic or ordinary differential equation (SDE or ODE). Instead, it defines a corresponding SDE or ODE for editing. In the formulation, we prove that the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the marginal distributions of the two SDEs gradually decreases while that for the ODEs remains as the time approaches zero, which shows the promise of SDE in image editing. Inspired by it, we provide the SDE counterparts for widely used ODE baselines in various tasks including inpainting and image-to-image translation, where SDE shows a consistent and substantial improvement. Moreover, we propose \emph{SDE-Drag} -- a simple yet effective method built upon the SDE formulation for point-based content dragging. We build a challenging benchmark (termed \emph{DragBench}) with open-set natural, art, and AI-generated images for evaluation. A user study on DragBench indicates that SDE-Drag significantly outperforms our ODE baseline, existing diffusion-based methods, and the renowned DragGAN. Our results demonstrate the superiority and versatility of SDE in image editing and push the boundary of diffusion-based editing methods. See the project page \url{https://ml-gsai.github.io/SDE-Drag-demo/} for the code and DragBench dataset.

Author context

Most prolific author: 10 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)