Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Lefan Hou
dblp:352/8636
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
4since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
3 papers |
Generative modeling · 79% Trustworthy machine learning · 17% Efficient and distributed learning · 4% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Visual content generation and editing · 100% |
Topics — the 10 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model
text-to-image generation |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | SCoRE: Standardized Human Evaluation Provides a Reliable Measure for Semantic Consistency of Text-to-Image Generation · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2026 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model
diffusion distillation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reducing Spatial Fitting Error in Distillation of Denoising Diffusion Models · AAAI 2024 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
diffusion model |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reducing Spatial Fitting Error in Distillation of Denoising Diffusion Models · AAAI 2024 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling › diffusion model › few-step generation
few-step image generation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reducing Spatial Fitting Error in Distillation of Denoising Diffusion Models · AAAI 2024 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
image generation |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Reducing Spatial Fitting Error in Distillation of Denoising Diffusion Models · AAAI 2024 |
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative adversarial network |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Preserving Structural Consistency in Arbitrary Artist and Artwork Style Transfer · AAAI 2023 |
Visual content generation and editing › style transfer
artistic style transfer |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Preserving Structural Consistency in Arbitrary Artist and Artwork Style Transfer · AAAI 2023 |
Visual content generation and editing
style transfer |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Preserving Structural Consistency in Arbitrary Artist and Artwork Style Transfer · AAAI 2023 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
knowledge distillation |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Reducing Spatial Fitting Error in Distillation of Denoising Diffusion Models · AAAI 2024 |
Visual content generation and editing
image generation |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Preserving Structural Consistency in Arbitrary Artist and Artwork Style Transfer · AAAI 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
edge enhancement · 1.3adversarial training · 1.3human evaluation · 1.0semantic gradient predictor · 0.8bias-variance decomposition · 0.8attention guidance · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | SCoRE: Standardized Human Evaluation Provides a Reliable Measure for Semantic Consistency of Text-to-Image Generation
Zejian Li, Qi Liu 0076, Jiaman Pan, Lefan Hou, Xiangfei Hu, Jiarui Ma, Shengyuan Zhang, Jiesi Zhang, Xuetao Tian, Xiaoming Deng 0001 |
Int. J. Comput. Vis. | 5 |
| 2025 | Image generation evaluation: a comprehensive survey of human and automatic evaluationsabstractImage generation models have made remarkable progress, and image evaluation is crucial for explaining and driving the development of these models. Previous studies have extensively explored human and automatic evaluations of image generation. Herein, these studies are comprehensively surveyed, specifically for two main parts: evaluation protocols and evaluation methods. First, 10 image generation tasks are summarized with focus on their differences in evaluation aspects. Based on this, a novel protocol is proposed to cover human and automatic evaluation aspects required for various image generation tasks. Second, the review of automatic evaluation methods in the past five years is highlighted. To our knowledge, this paper presents the first comprehensive summary of human evaluation, encompassing evaluation methods, tools, details, and data analysis methods. Finally, the challenges and potential directions for image generation evaluation are discussed. We hope that this survey will help researchers develop a systematic understanding of image generation evaluation, stay updated with the latest advancements in the field, and encourage further research. Qi Liu 0076, Shuanglin Yang, Zejian Li, Lefan Hou, Chenye Meng, Ying Zhang 0076, Lingyun Sun |
Frontiers Inf. Technol. Electron. Eng. | 4 |
| 2024 | Reducing Spatial Fitting Error in Distillation of Denoising Diffusion ModelsabstractDenoising Diffusion models have exhibited remarkable capabilities in image generation. However, generating high-quality samples requires a large number of iterations. Knowledge distillation for diffusion models is an effective method to address this limitation with a shortened sampling process but causes degraded generative quality. Based on our analysis with bias-variance decomposition and experimental observations, we attribute the degradation to the spatial fitting error occurring in the training of both the teacher and student model in the distillation. Accordingly, we propose Spatial Fitting-Error Reduction Distillation model (SFERD). SFERD utilizes attention guidance from the teacher model and a designed semantic gradient predictor to reduce the student's fitting error. Empirically, our proposed model facilitates high-quality sample generation in a few function evaluations. We achieve an FID of 5.31 on CIFAR-10 and 9.39 on ImageNet 64x64 with only one step, outperforming existing diffusion methods. Our study provides a new perspective on diffusion distillation by highlighting the intrinsic denoising ability of models. Shengzhe Zhou, Zejian Li, Shengyuan Zhang, Lefan Hou, Chang-yuan Yang, Guang Yang 0022, Lingyun Sun |
AAAI | 4 |
| 2023 | Preserving Structural Consistency in Arbitrary Artist and Artwork Style TransferabstractDeep generative models are effective in style transfer. Previous methods learn one or several specific artist-style from a collection of artworks. These methods not only homogenize the artist-style of different artworks of the same artist but also lack generalization for the unseen artists. To solve these challenges, we propose a double-style transferring module (DSTM). It extracts different artist-style and artwork-style from different artworks (even untrained) and preserves the intrinsic diversity between different artworks of the same artist. DSTM swaps the two styles in the adversarial training and encourages realistic image generation given arbitrary style combinations. However, learning style from single artwork can often cause over-adaption to it, resulting in the introduction of structural features of style image. We further propose an edge enhancing module (EEM) which derives edge information from multi-scale and multi-level features to enhance structural consistency. We broadly evaluate our method across six large-scale benchmark datasets. Empirical results show that our method achieves arbitrary artist-style and artwork-style extraction from a single artwork, and effectively avoids introducing the style image’s structural features. Our method improves the state-of-the-art deception rate from 58.9% to 67.2% and the average FID from 48.74 to 42.83. Jingyu Wu, Lefan Hou, Zejian Li, Jun Liao 0001, Li Liu 0001, Lingyun Sun |
AAAI | 2 |