STGAN: A Unified Selective Transfer Network for Arbitrary Image Attribute Editing
Open accessAbstract
Arbitrary attribute editing generally can be tackled by incorporating encoder-decoder and generative adversarial networks. However, the bottleneck layer in encoder-decoder usually gives rise to blurry and low quality editing result. And adding skip connections improves image quality at the cost of weakened attribute manipulation ability. Moreover, existing methods exploit target attribute vector to guide the flexible translation to desired target domain. In this work, we suggest to address these issues from selective transfer perspective. Considering that specific editing task is certainly only related to the changed attributes instead of all target attributes, our model selectively takes the difference between target and source attribute vectors as input. Furthermore, selective transfer units are incorporated with encoder-decoder to adaptively select and modify encoder feature for enhanced attribute editing. Experiments show that our method (i.e., STGAN) simultaneously improves attribute manipulation accuracy as well as perception quality, and performs favorably against state-of-the-arts in arbitrary face attribute editing and season translation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There exist five primary types of deepfake manipulation.
“There exist five primary types of deepfake manipulation, as shown in Figure 1.”
From Deepfake Attacks: Generation, Detection, Datasets, Challenges, and Research Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
Attribute manipulation alters only the region relevant to the attribute in order to change facial appearance by removing or donning eyeglasses, retouching the skin, and changing age and gender.
“In attribute manipulation [33], only the region that is relevant to the attribute is altered alone in order to change the facial appearance by removing or donning eyeglasses, retouching the skin, and even making some more significant changes, like changing the age and gender.”
From Deepfake Attacks: Generation, Detection, Datasets, Challenges, and Research Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 394
- Authors
- Liu, M., Ding, Y., Xia, M., Liu, X., Ding, E., Zuo, W., & Wen, S.
- Affiliations
- Harbin Institute of Technology (CN)
- Baidu (China) (CN)
- Venue
- 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2019-06
- Pages
- 3668-3677
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2939645724
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 17.65
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61671182, 61872118)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Enhancement Techniques
- Keywords
- selective transfer, generative adversarial networks, encoder-decoder architecture, image quality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review