Writing study: Guiding a Diffusion Model by Swapping Its Tokens

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Weijia Zhang, Yuehao Liu, Shanyan Guan, Wu Ran, Yanhao Ge, Wei Li, Chao Ma · Official CVPR 2026 oral record

Observed writing choices, not acceptance rules. This study examines the inspected manuscript version. It does not establish why the paper was accepted or that its presentation choices should be copied unchanged.

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Architecture & representation (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF

10 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.1 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

8 / 7

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 81%References / intervening material: ≈ 19%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level heading	Starts on PDF page	Estimated span	Share of entire PDF
1. Introduction	1	≈ 1.91 pp.	19.1%
2. Related Work	3	≈ 0.91 pp.	9.1%
3. Preliminaries	4	≈ 0.6 pp.	6%
4. SSG: Self-Swap Guidance	4	≈ 1.43 pp.	14.3%
5. Experiments	6	≈ 2.56 pp.	25.6%
6. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.3 pp.	3%
References	9	≈ 1.9 pp.	19%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 2
• Figure 3 · p. 3
• Table 1 · p. 4
• Table 2 · p. 4
• Figure 4 · p. 5
• Table 3 · p. 6
• Table 4 · p. 6
• Figure 5 · p. 7
• Figure 6 · p. 7
• Table 5 · p. 7
• Figure 7 · p. 7
• Table 6 · p. 8
• Table 7 · p. 8
• Figure 8 · p. 8

Attached appendix

No recognized caption labels.

Separate source files—excluded from canonical-PDF totals

A separate author version may repeat main text and references. Whole-file lengths and counts are not extra appendix material and are never added to the canonical PDF totals. Read the study's source scope for which sections received substantive reading versus layout inspection.

Additional source 1

Separate PDF (or ZIP containing it): whole-file layout of 7 physical pages; 9 detected figures and 6 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 6.94 page-equivalents, 9 figure labels and 6 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.08 pp.
A. Experiment Details	1	≈ 0.69 pp.
B. Further Analysis	1	≈ 1.76 pp.
C. Additional Qualitative Results	3	≈ 4.4 pp.

• Table A · p. 1
• Table B · p. 2
• Table C · p. 2
• Table D · p. 2
• Table E · p. 2
• Figure A · p. 3
• Table F · p. 3
• Figure B · p. 3
• Figure C · p. 3
• Figure D · p. 3
• Figure E · p. 4
• Figure F · p. 4
• Figure G · p. 5
• Figure H · p. 6
• Figure I · p. 7

Argument and organization

1. Guidance failure and preliminaries

   Explain why condition-dependent guidance does not solve unconditional sampling before defining the self-swap alternative.

2. Separate generation regimes and diagnostics

   Report unconditional and conditional results, then vary swap policy, ratio and guidance scale.

Problem, claim and contribution

The paper identifies the negative-reference branch as the intervention point and uses visible degradation patterns to motivate controlled token perturbation.

Introduction and Figure 2, PDF pp. 1–2 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

Diffusion preliminaries precede the self-swap section; results then mirror the two promised settings, conditional and unconditional generation.

Sections 3–5, PDF pp. 4–6 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

The unconditional grid on page 3 fixes method columns across examples, while page 6 pairs two compact benchmark tables with identical metric columns and sampling-step counts.

Figure 3, PDF p. 3; Tables 3–4, PDF p. 6; visual inspection · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

The swap-policy and ratio experiments test the proposed perturbation mechanism, while the CFG compatibility experiment addresses whether the method complements an existing guidance technique.

Figures 5–8 and Tables 5–7, PDF pp. 7–8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The official ZIP supplement provides layer/module choices, scheduler differences, frequency-domain diagnostics, runtime and memory, and explicit style-drift examples before extended generation grids. This connects the guidance mechanism to both implementation and failure behavior.

Official ZIP PDF supplement §§A–C, PDF pp. 1–7; Table F and Figures A–D, pp. 2–3 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

The experimental section explicitly states matched seeds for unconditional examples and supplied prompts for conditional examples, making the qualitative comparison protocol clear.

Section 5.2, PDF p. 6 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: Organize a broadly applicable inference method by operating regime, then test the specific perturbation choices separately from headline sample quality.

Boundary: Do not repeat an across-all-metrics claim without checking the table: unconditional generation metrics have trade-offs, and the implementation uses a different scheduler for SAG.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-09-26

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Manuscript-wide writing scan of PDF pp. 1–10: framing, argument sequence, section organization, figure/table captions, evaluation interpretation and limitations; reference sections identified. This is a writing-focused scan, not an exhaustive technical proof or reproduction audit. Main PDF pages 3 and 6 were rendered and visually inspected.

Appendix / supplement

Writing-focused scan of the separate supplementary PDF, pp. 1–7, including its organization, captions, protocol/evidence detail and limitation material where present; proofs and code listings were inspected for exposition, not independently verified or executed. Official ZIP PDF supplement §§A–C, PDF pp. 1–7; Table F and Figures A–D, pp. 2–3. Linked video/audio demonstrations and non-PDF archive contents were not assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

3, 6

This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.

• Official CVPR 2026 CVF open-access accepted manuscript; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 10 pages
• Official CVPR 2026 supplementary ZIP PDF member: ssg_cvpr25_suppl_camera_ready/ssg_cvpr26_camera_ready_supp.pdf; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 7 pages