Writing study: GoodDiffusion: Proactive Copyright Protection for Diffusion Bridge Models via Learnable Sample-specific Signatures

ICML overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← ICML 2026 oral writing corpus

Shixi Qin, Zhiyong Yang, Shilong Bao, Zitai Wang, Qianqian Xu, Qingming Huang · Official ICML 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: Training, objectives & optimization (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

29 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.83 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

4 / 2

Attached appendix figures / tables

8 / 7

Attached appendix span

≈ 15.92 page-equivalents

Before references / appendix: ≈ 30.45%References / intervening material: ≈ 14.66%Attached appendix: ≈ 54.9%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Source-bound correction: The supporting-material envelope starts with the printed Appendix Contents page14, before Appendix A on page15.

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	≈ 1.09 pp.	3.76%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 0.51 pp.	1.76%
3. Preliminary	3	≈ 1.03 pp.	3.55%
4. GoodDiffusion	4	≈ 2.6 pp.	8.97%
5. Experiments	6	≈ 1.94 pp.	6.69%
6. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.14 pp.	0.48%
Impact Statement	8	≈ 0.36 pp.	1.24%
Acknowledgements	9	≈ 0.54 pp.	1.86%
References	9	≈ 4.26 pp.	14.69%
Appendix Contents	14	≈ 1 pp.	3.45%
A. Proof	15	≈ 1.64 pp.	5.66%
B. Additional Experiments Results	16	≈ 13.27 pp.	45.76%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 4
• Table 1 · p. 6
• Figure 2 · p. 8
• Figure 3 · p. 8
• Figure 4 · p. 9
• Table 2 · p. 9

Attached appendix

• Table 3 · p. 17
• Table 4 · p. 18
• Table 5 · p. 19
• Table 6 · p. 19
• Table 7 · p. 20
• Table 8 · p. 20
• Figure 5 · p. 21
• Figure 6 · p. 22
• Figure 7 · p. 23
• Figure 8 · p. 24
• Figure 9 · p. 25
• Figure 10 · p. 26
• Figure 11 · p. 27
• Figure 12 · p. 28
• Table 9 · p. 29

Argument and organization

1. 1 Introduction; 2 Related Work; 3 Preliminary

   Defines proactive use control, diffusion bridges and the restricted white-box threat model.

2. 4 GoodDiffusion

   Builds a static design, exposes its recovery vulnerability and replaces it with sample-specific signatures.

3. 5 Experiments; 6 Conclusion

   Separates authorized quality, unauthorized blocking and surrogate-signature recovery tests.

Problem, claim and contribution

The operational goal is use-time model authorization with a separately held signature service, which is narrower than establishing legal copyright protection.

Introduction, p.1; threat model, p.3 · Main paper

Argument and section order

A deliberately naive static signature and its vulnerability motivate the input-dependent signature network, providing a problem-solution sequence inside the method.

Sections 4.3-4.5, p.5 · Main paper

Figures, captions and visual explanation

The overview contrasts authorized and warning trajectories, and the results grid aligns tasks, signatures, model variants and targets; a separate metric panel distinguishes authorized, normal and unauthorized outputs.

Figure 1, p.4; Figures 2-3, p.8 · Main paper

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Abuse and erroneous-denial rates are defined by image-distance thresholds, while the reported surrogate recovery uses a specified bounded optimization budget.

Section 5.2, p.7; implementation details, p.17 · Main paper

Appendix and reproducibility

The proof assumes Gaussian distributions, an invertible linear corruption and an exact score model; importantly, the fine-tuning appendix reports blocking failure after 50 steps.

Appendix A, p.15; Appendix B.6 and Table 5, pp.18-19 · Main paper

Clarity and writing conventions

The main text uses categorical blocking language, but the appendix limits the adversary resource assumption and shows a successful fine-tuning route, so the prose should be read conditionally.

Conclusion, p.8; Appendix B.6, p.18 · Main paper

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: Make attack access, optimization budget and failure modes part of the headline claim, not merely supporting implementation detail.

Boundary: The experiments do not certify unrestricted white-box security or legal copyright compliance. The appendix explicitly reports a fine-tuning failure, and static-signature theory relies on idealized assumptions.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-10-07

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Writing-oriented scan of the main argument through physical p.9, with focused physical-page text inspection on 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Framing, section progression, mechanism/proof explanation, displays, comparison conditions and conclusions were inspected. This is not exhaustive technical reading, proof verification or reproduction.

Appendix / supplement

Appendix organization and main-text pointers were checked; focused text inspection of physical pages 15, 17, 18, 19, 22. Remaining appendix proofs and details were not exhaustively read. No separately linked supplement inspected.

Visually inspected PDF pages

4, 8

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.

• Published proceedings PDF, PMLR volume 306, retrieved 2026-10-07 · 29 pages