PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Patched Denoising Diffusion Models For High-Resolution Image Synthesis

Zheng Ding, Mengqi Zhang, Jiajun Wu, Zhuowen Tu

generative modelsDiffusion Models
59.80100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.32)
48.80100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)
66.50100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±23 pct pts (from σ = 0.46)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We propose Patch-DM which uses a feature collage mechanism to produce high-resolution images based on diffusion models.

Abstract

We propose an effective denoising diffusion model for generating high-resolution images (e.g., 1024$\times$512), trained on small-size image patches (e.g., 64$\times$64). We name our algorithm Patch-DM, in which a new feature collage strategy is designed to avoid the boundary artifact when synthesizing large-size images. Feature collage systematically crops and combines partial features of the neighboring patches to predict the features of a shifted image patch, allowing the seamless generation of the entire image due to the overlap in the patch feature space. Patch-DM produces high-quality image synthesis results on our newly collected dataset of nature images (1024$\times$512), as well as on standard benchmarks of LHQ(1024$\times$ 1024), FFHQ(1024$\times$ 1024) and on other datasets with smaller sizes (256$\times$256), including LSUN-Bedroom, LSUN-Church, and FFHQ. We compare our method with previous patch-based generation methods and achieve state-of-the-art FID scores on all six datasets. Further, Patch-DM also reduces memory complexity compared to the classic diffusion models. Project page: https://patchdm.github.io.

Author context

Most prolific author: 8 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.

Battle history — 32 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 57% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)