Deepface generation has traditionally followed a task-driven paradigm, where distinct tasks (e.g., face transfer and hair transfer) are addressed by task-specific models. Nevertheless, this single-task setting severely limits model generalization and scalability. A unified model capable of solving multiple deepface generation tasks in a single pass represents a promising and practical direction, yet remains challenging due to data scarcity and cross-task conflicts arising from heterogeneous attribute transformations. To this end, we propose UniBioTransfer, the first unified framework capable of handling both conventional deepface tasks (e.g., face transfer and face reenactment) and shape-varying transformations (e.g., hair transfer and head transfer). Besides, UniBioTransfer naturally generalizes to unseen tasks, like lip, eye, and glasses transfer, with minimal fine-tuning. Generally, UniBioTransfer addresses data insufficiency in multi-task generation through a unified data construction strategy, including a swapping-based corruption mechanism designed for spatially dynamic attributes like hair. It further mitigates cross-task interference via an innovative BioMoE, a mixture-of-experts based model coupled with a novel two-stage training strategy that effectively disentangles task-specific knowledge. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness, generalization, and scalability of UniBioTransfer, outperforming both existing unified models and task-specific methods across a wide range of deepface generation tasks. Project page is at https://scy639.github.io/UniBioTransfer.github.io/
Figures & tables
Figure 3: Our unified data corruption strategy for different attribute types. (a) Relative-static attributes: the target is constructed by simple masking or data augmentation of the GT image. (b) Spatially-dynamic attributes: we utilize our swapping-based corruption strategy, which employs an off-the-shelf generative model to replace specific attributes in the GT with arbitrary novel variations, preventing shape leakage from mask boundaries.
Figure 4: UniBioTransfer architecture overview. (a) Overall framework. (b) We introduce an MoE-enhanced Feed Forward Network (FFN). (c) Expert selection is guided by a Structure-Aware Router. (d) The entire system is optimized using a two-stage training strategy designed to stabilize routing and promote expert specialization.
Figure 5: Visual Comparisons on diverse deepface tasks. More results in Suppl.
Method
Medium Level Tasks
High Level Tasks
Face Transfer
Hair Transfer
Motion Transfer
Head Transfer
ID sim ↑
pose dist. ↓
expr. dist. ↓
CLIP dist. ↓
ID sim ↑
non-hair SSIM ↑
ID sim ↑
pose dist. ↓
expr. dist. ↓
CLIP dist. ↓
ID sim ↑
pose dist. ↓
Multi-Task Methods (Training separately for different tasks)
REFace (WACV 25)
0.631
3.75
1.04
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.639
0.540
5.43
Unified Method (Train once for all tasks)
Face-Adapter (ECCV 24)
0.519
4.91
1.33
-
-
-
0.503
6.89
2.27
-
-
-
Table 1: Quantitative comparisons on High-Level and Mid-Level deepface tasks with multi-task and unified approaches . Notably, only UniBioTransfer can perform all four tasks simultaneously.For all metrics, ↑ indicates higher is better and ↓ indicates lower is better. Best results are highlighted in bold .
Method
Medium Level Tasks
High Level Tasks
Face Transfer
Hair Transfer
Motion Transfer
Head Transfer
ID sim ↑
pose dist. ↓
expr. dist. ↓
CLIP dist. ↓
ID sim ↑
non-hair SSIM ↑
ID sim ↑
pose dist. ↓
expr. dist. ↓
CLIP dist. ↓
ID sim ↑
pose dist. ↓
HunyuanPortrait (CVPR 25)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.580
9.22
2.18
-
-
-
CanonSwap (ICCV 25)
0.551
2.92
0.87
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stable-Hair (AAAI 25)
-
-
-
0.468
0.855
0.87
-
-
-
-
-
-
HairFusion (AAAI 25)
-
-
-
0.478
0.848
0.80
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table 2: Quantitative comparisons on High-Level and Mid-Level deepface tasks with task-specific methods . Notably, UniBioTransfer performs all the four tasks simultaneously in a single training cycle.
Method
Facial Part Transfer (Low Level Tasks)
Eye
Nose
Lip
CLIP L2 ↓
expr L2 ↓
SSIM ↑
CLIP L2 ↓
expr L2 ↓
SSIM ↑
CLIP L2 ↓
expr L2 ↓
SSIM ↑
FuseAnyPart (NIPS 24)
0.449
0.798
0.898
0.332
0.802
0.898
0.372
0.794
0.902
Ours (w/o Uni.)
0.471
0.697
0.889
0.337
0.672
0.859
0.384
1.009
0.867
Ours
0.427
0.599
0.927
0.327
0.532
0.937
0.378
0.579
0.937
Table 3: Quantitative comparisons on Low-Level Facial-Part Swap tasks.
Figure 7
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: We show the specific examples of data construction on 4 tasks in (a)-(d). Grey arrow means the corruption process only involves Relative-Static Attributes Corruption. Yellow arrow means it involves Spatially-Dynamic Attributes Corruption, thus need the Swapping-Based Corruption, as shown in (e).
Method
Face transfer ↑
Hair transfer ↓
Reenact ↓
Head transfer ↓
Qwen-Image-Edit (arXiv 25)
0.442
0.486
17.13
0.582
Ours
0.637
0.421
7.09
0.460
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison with Qwen-Image-Edit (general-purpose image editing model). For each task, we report the most representative metric, that is identity similarity, hair clip distance, pose distance, and head clip distance. For all metrics, ↑ indicates higher is better and ↓ indicates lower is better. Best results are in bold .
Method
CLIP dist. ↓
ID sim ↑
non-hair SSIM ↑
Stable-Hair (AAAI 25)
0.468
0.855
0.87
Our initial model
0.421
0.887
0.91
Our evolved model
0.419
0.888
0.94
Appendix
Table 7: Quantitative results of the self-evolution experiment on hair transfer task. By leveraging our initial model to construct higher-quality training data, we can obtain an evolved model with improved performance.
Figure 8: Analysis of the general image editing model Qwen-Image-Edit [ 60 ] . (a) Under the multiple-image mode (reference-based editing), Qwen-Image-Edit exhibits many unstable behavior like under-follow the reference, over-transfer and damage the target, or hallucinate in the edited region. (More examples are shown in Section 0.D : Fig. 11 - 14 ). The consistently poor quantitative results shown in Tab. 1 further confirm its unsuitability for the transfer task . (b) However, under the single-image mode (instruction-based editing), it can still generate plausible and diverse attribute variations, which is sufficient for swapping-based corruption .
LoRA Rank Allocation Method
Face transfer ↑
Hair transfer ↓
Reenact ↓
Head transfer ↓
Uniform
0.636
0.419
10.13
0.460
Gradient-based
0.634
0.433
7.35
0.464
Result-based ( Ours )
0.637
0.421
7.09
0.460
Appendix
Table 8: We compare our Result-based Adaptive LoRA rank against the conventional gradient-based and the uniform rank. For each task, we report the most representative metric, that is identity similarity, hair clip distance, pose distance, and head clip distance.
Figure 9: Examples of discarded and retained image pairs after filtering for hair transfer. (a) Discarded pairs due to low background SSIM, low face identity similarity, large pose L2 distance, and large expression L2 distance, respectively; (b) Retained pairs after filtering.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison against the StyleGAN-based method, Barbershop [ 79 ] . As indicated by the red arrows, Barbershop encounters obvious visual artifacts and distortions when there is a pose discrepancy between the reference and target images. Moreover, due to its heavy reliance on latent optimization, it requires ≥4 minutes to infer a single image pair, rendering it highly unscalable and unsuitable for our unified, efficient multi-task generation task.
Method
CLIP dist. ↓
ID sim ↑
pose dist. ↓
expr. dist. ↓
CLIP dist. (hair) ↓
FID ↓
Task-Specific Methods
GHOST2.0 (arXiv 25)
0.618
0.461
5.78
1.867
0.497
31.38
Multi-Task Methods (training separately for different tasks)
REFace (WACV 25)
0.639
0.540
5.43
1.776
0.549
8.33
Unified Methods (train once for all tasks)
Ours
0.460
0.545
5.28
1.772
0.399
8.28
Appendix
Table 9: Quantitative comparison with more metrics for head transfer. For all metrics, ↑ indicates higher is better and ↓ indicates lower is better. Best result from Unified Methods are marked Red . Overall best results are highlighted in bold , while overall second-best results are underlined .
Method
Peak CUDA memory (GB) ↓
Infer time (second/img) ↓
Task-Specific Methods
CanonSwap (ICCV 25)
11.7
<1
Stable-Hair (AAAI 25)
19.3
16
HairFusion (AAAI 25)
10.9
22
HunyuanPortrait (CVPR 25)
18.4
103
GHOST2.0 (arXiv 25)
8.0
<1
Appendix
Table 10: Efficiency comparison: Runtime and Peak CUDA memory. For all metrics, ↓ indicates lower is better. For multi-task methods, we report the maximum runtime and peak CUDA memory across all tasks.
Task
Method
Exaggerated Expressions
Extreme Pose
Occlusions
ID sim ↑ pose dist. ↓ expr. dist. ↓
ID sim ↑ pose dist. ↓ expr. dist. ↓
ID sim ↑ pose dist. ↓ expr. dist. ↓
Face Transfer
REFace
0.509
5.10
1.28
0.293
10.09
1.10
0.311
5.93
1.07
CanonSwap
0.446
2.27
0.91
0.141
3.73
0.75
0.152
2.53
0.76
Ours
0.518
3.54
1.04
0.302
4.25
0.73
0.316
4.80
1.06
CLIP dist. ↓
ID sim ↑
non-hair SSIM ↑
CLIP dist. ↓
ID sim ↑
non-hair SSIM ↑
CLIP dist. ↓
ID sim ↑
non-hair SSIM ↑
Hair Transfer
Stable-Hair
0.460
0.869
0.871
0.477
0.831
0.880
0.472
0.826
0.848
Appendix
Table 11: Comparisons on the most competitive methods for each task under complex scenes.
Figure 11: Hair transfer visual comparison.
Figure 12: Motion transfer visual comparison. HunyuanPortrait tends to change the face skin, or lighting. The faceAdapter shows suboptimal face fidelity.
Figure 13: Head transfer visual comparison.
Figure 14: Face transfer visual comparison.
Figure 15: Visual comparison of face transfer under complex scenes.
Figure 16: Visual comparison of hair transfer under complex scenes.
Figure 17: Visual comparison of motion transfer (face reenactment) under complex scenes.
Figure 18: Visual comparison of head transfer under complex scenes.
Unified Multimodal Models (UMMs) integrate image understanding and generation within a single architecture, yet how the two tasks interact remains understudied. We investigate transferability in UMMs: whether training a capability on one task improves the same capability on the other without explicit supervision. Through controlled experiments, we empirically find that transferability depends on architecture-models with fully shared transformer backbone and a unified visual encoder exhibit consistent cross-task transfer, while loosely coupled designs show little or none. Leveraging this transferability, we propose a practical training strategy. The most straightforward way to improve a target generative capability (e.g., counting) is to fine-tune generation directly, but this can degrade visual quality due to distribution shift. Instead, we train the corresponding understanding task and let it transfer into generation, which improves capability-specific generative performance while minimizing distribution shift. We validate this across three capabilities-counting, spatial relation, and text recognition/generation-showing that cross-task transferability can be systematically exploited in UMMs.
Jiwon Kang, Heeji Yoon, Jaewoo Jung +5
KAIST AI, South Korea · Blynx, South Korea · Trillionlabs, South Korea
Recent multimodal face generation models address the spatial control limitations of text-to-image diffusion models by augmenting text-based conditioning with spatial priors such as segmentation masks, sketches, or edge maps. This multimodal fusion enables controllable synthesis aligned with both high-level semantic intent and low-level structural layout. However, most existing approaches typically extend pre-trained text-to-image pipelines by appending auxiliary control modules or stitching together separate uni-modal networks. These ad hoc designs inherit architectural constraints, duplicate parameters, and often fail under conflicting modalities or mismatched latent spaces, limiting their ability to perform synergistic fusion across semantic and spatial domains. We introduce MMFace-DiT, a unified dual-stream diffusion transformer engineered for synergistic multimodal face synthesis. Its core novelty lies in a dual-stream transformer block that processes spatial (mask/sketch) and semantic (text) tokens in parallel, deeply fusing them through a shared Rotary Position-Embedded (RoPE) Attention mechanism. This design prevents modal dominance and ensures strong adherence to both text and structural priors to achieve unprecedented spatial-semantic consistency for controllable face generation. Furthermore, a novel Modality Embedder enables a single cohesive model to dynamically adapt to varying spatial conditions without retraining. MMFace-DiT achieves a 40% improvement in visual fidelity and prompt alignment over six state-of-the-art multimodal face generation models, establishing a flexible new paradigm for end-to-end controllable generative modeling. The code and dataset are available on our project page: https://vcbsl.github.io/MMFace-DiT/
Unified fashion generation integrates tasks like virtual try-on and garment reconstruction into a single model to reduce task-specific adaptation costs. However, naive parameter sharing across semantically distinct tasks induces negative transfer through severe inter-task gradient conflict. We propose OrthoTryOn, a unified framework mitigating this interference within a shared Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) module. Its Orthogonal Subspace Projection (OSP) applies task-specific orthogonal rotations to bottleneck features, mapping them into decorrelated coordinate frames. To address residual semantic coupling at inference time, we further propose Fisher-guided Negative Guidance (FNG), a parameter-free strategy that utilizes diagonal Fisher information to quantify inter-task sensitivity overlap and explicitly repels generation trajectories from the most confusable task via Classifier-Free Guidance. Extensive experiments demonstrate that OrthoTryOn avoids the severe performance degradation typical of naive unified training and even surpasses independently trained task-specific models, achieving state-of-the-art results across multiple benchmarks while generalizing robustly across diverse diffusion backbones. Code is available at https://github.com/NJU-PCALab/OrthoTryOn.
Zhaotong Yang, Ying Tai, Jiahui Zhan +3
PCA Lab, School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology · PCA Lab, School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Nanjing University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University