Style transfer applies the appearance of a reference image to a content image while preserving its spatial structure. Recent diffusion-based methods achieve strong stylization but typically assume a single global style. We instead consider regional-multi style transfer, which assigns multiple references to user-specified regions of a content image. Extending them to this setting reveals two coupled shared-attention issues: ambiguous mass allocation among content and style partitions and degraded selectivity as more styles are jointly normalized, while style aggregation at the attention output further suppresses fine details. We propose MAST (Mask-Guided Attention Control for Training-Free Regional-Multi Style Transfer), a unified attention-control framework for frozen diffusion models. Logit-level Attention Mass Allocation enforces mask-derived partition masses, Sharpness-aware Temperature Scaling adaptively restores selectivity, and Discrepancy-aware Detail Injection recovers high-frequency content. MAST jointly processes all style--mask pairs in a single denoising pass without training, optimization, or post-hoc composition. Across two to five styles, MAST achieves the best average ArtFID, FID, and R-FID among all baselines, demonstrating regional style fidelity, content preservation, and scalability.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: The two shared-attention failure modes and their corrections. (A) Under shared attention, the attention mass assigned to the upper style reference spreads beyond the target region; LAMA focuses it on the mask. (B) Rank-wise attention becomes flatter as the number of style references N increases, whereas STS preserves selectivity (left); the corresponding sharpness maps (right) further illustrate this improvement.
Figure 3: Overview of the MAST framework. (Left) The stylization pipeline employs DDIM inversion and AdaIN-based initialization, with style injected through attention modulation during denoising. (Right) The attention control framework comprises two core attention-control modules - LAMA (mass allocation) and STS (attention sharpening) - and one complementary detail-preservation module (DDI). The bar charts illustrate attention allocation progressively reshaped by LAMA and sharpened by STS.
Method
ArtFID ↓
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
R-FID ↓
2
3
4
5
Avg
2
3
4
5
Avg
2
3
4
5
Avg
2
3
4
5
Avg
(G-S)
Z∗
17.215
17.009
17.253
16.926
17.101
10.865
10.745
10.876
10.664
10.787
0.451
0.448
0.453
0.451
0.451
13.153
16.693
21.566
23.062
18.618
StyleID
16.635
16.819
16.995
16.927
16.844
10.323
10.451
10.643
10.383
10.450
0.469
0.469
0.460
0.487
0.471
13.685
17.956
25.562
26.523
20.931
CoCoDiff
16.870
17.217
17.345
17.308
17.185
10.400
10.633
10.555
10.455
10.511
0.480
0.480
0.501
0.511
0.493
13.680
18.219
26.322
27.152
21.343
(R-S)
Table 1: Quantitative comparison across two to five reference styles. Methods are grouped into Global-Single ( G-S ), Regional-Single ( R-S ), and Regional-Multi ( R-M ) style transfer. For methods that composite single-style outputs, the best of hard masking and three soft-blending schemes is reported, selected per setting by ArtFID. Avg denotes the arithmetic mean over the four style counts.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison across style settings, illustrating baseline failure modes and MAST ’s coherent multi-style results. Rows 1–4 correspond to N=2,3,4,5 , respectively. Columns 4–6, 7–8, and 9–10 show the G-S , R-S , and R-M baselines, respectively. Each G-S and R-S baseline uses its best-performing compositing strategy. See Fig. 1 for the mask notation.
Figure 5: Progressive multi-style transfer under a fixed four-style mask. Styles are sequentially added from left to right.
Method
ArtFID ↓
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
StyleMixer
16.461
17.025
17.661
17.665
9.646
10.087
10.571
10.595
0.546
0.536
0.526
0.524
StyleGallery
15.033
15.234
15.359
15.321
9.240
9.445
9.554
9.540
0.468
0.458
0.455
0.454
MAST
14.780
14.802
15.014
15.117
8.656
8.700
8.905
8.929
0.531
0.526
0.516
0.522
Table 2: Quantitative comparison with automatic semantic-matching methods.
Figure 6: Comparison with regional-multi baselines under automatic semantic-matching. StyleMixer (top) and StyleGallery (bottom) are shown with their inferred masks (pink and green); MAST uses the same inferred masks for region-wise stylization.
Figure 7: Qualitative ablation of MAST components in the two-style setting.
LAMA
STS
DDI
ArtFID ↓
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
R-FID ↓
30.549
24.134
0.216
33.930
✓
16.680
9.665
0.564
13.276
✓
✓
14.769
8.495
0.555
10.803
✓
✓
✓
14.780
8.656
0.531
11.260
Table 3: Quantitative ablation of MAST components in the two-style setting; the base setting is excluded from ranking.
Method
Style
Content
Leakage ↓
TV ↓
JSD ↓
Shared Attn.
0.242
0.582
0.175
0.656
0.276
+ LAMA
0.900
0.100
1.0×10−6
9.1×10−8
1.6×10−8
Target
0.900
0.100
0
0
0
Table 4: Partition-allocation ambiguity in the two-style setting over 200 images, resolved by LAMA. Leakage, TV, and JSD reach numerical precision ( <10−5 ) under LAMA.
Figure 8: Comparison of fixed and adaptive sharpening in the two-style setting.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
λ
ArtFID ↓
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
R-FID ↓
0.50
16.690
10.459
0.457
14.147
0.25
15.103
8.960
0.516
11.735
0.20
14.780
8.656
0.531
11.260
0.15
14.645
8.476
0.546
10.828
0.10
14.357
8.186
0.563
10.112
Appendix
Table 5: Effect of the content anchoring parameter λ on performance.
π⋆
ArtFID ↓
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
R-FID ↓
0.30
28.920
22.308
0.241
30.472
0.45
27.429
20.601
0.270
28.425
0.60
24.827
17.816
0.319
24.984
0.75
21.035
14.066
0.396
22.470
0.90
14.780
8.656
0.531
11.260
1.00
15.235
8.890
0.540
11.344
Appendix
Table 6: Quantitative evaluation in the two-style setting across different values of π⋆ .
Figure 9: Empirical mapping from the sharpness gap Δ to the reference-matching factor τ⋆ . Points denote head-level observations, the red curve denotes the fitted quadratic function, and the dashed line marks the lower boundary τ=0.8 of the calibration grid.
Degree
R2↑
1
0.927
2
0.932
3
0.934
4
0.935
Appendix
Table 7: Goodness of fit for polynomial mappings of different degrees.
Figure 10: Entropy-based verification of STS in the four-style setting. Mean attention entropy for content self-attention, the LAMA-adjusted joint attention before STS, and the resulting attention after STS. Values for each head are averaged over spatial queries, controlled layers, and 50 DDIM timesteps. Lower entropy indicates sharper attention.
N
E[πcSTS]
Dmass↓
ρmin↑
2
0.080
0.038
0.995
3
0.078
0.035
0.998
4
0.078
0.035
0.995
5
0.078
0.036
0.993
Appendix
Table 8: Effect of STS on the LAMA-guided allocation. The mean LAMA target for the content partition is E[πc⋆]=0.100 . ρmin measures agreement with the mask-induced query-wise allocation.
Figure 11: Sensitivity of DDI to the Gaussian frequency scale r . The independently min–max-normalized metrics ( 0 denotes best) are plotted against the relative squared-gain transmission T(r) on the lower logarithmic axis; the upper axis reports r , and the dashed line marks the default r=0.3 .
r
ArtFID ↓
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
R-FID ↓
0.1
15.276
9.126
0.509
12.055
0.3
14.780
8.656
0.531
11.260
0.5
14.707
8.527
0.544
10.984
0.7
14.626
8.451
0.548
10.868
0.9
14.570
8.400
0.550
10.828
Appendix
Table 9: Sensitivity analysis of the normalized Gaussian frequency scale r in the two-style setting. Lower values indicate better performance.
Metric
2-style
3-style
4-style
5-style
ArtFID
0.881
0.929
0.952
0.952
FID
0.881
0.881
0.881
0.881
LPIPS
−0.690
−0.762
−0.738
−0.571
Appendix
Table 10: Spearman rank correlation between R-FID and complementary metrics across the eight evaluated methods.
Metric
2
3
4
5
M-FID
17.073
27.735
35.915
41.007
ArtFID
14.780
14.802
15.014
15.117
FID
8.656
8.700
8.905
8.929
R-FID
11.260
14.219
18.797
20.883
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison of M-FID, ArtFID, FID, and R-FID on MAST outputs across different numbers of styles.
π⋆
R-FID ↓
0.10
71.291
0.50
60.264
0.90
18.797
Appendix
Table 12: Controlled style-weakening test in the four-style MAST setting. Only π⋆ is varied.
Method
Strategy
N=2
N=3
N=4
N=5
Z∗
Hard-mask
17.311
17.009
17.253
16.926
Alpha
17.215
17.381
17.602
17.530
Poisson
17.476
17.484
17.324
17.295
Laplacian-pyramid
17.265
17.449
17.436
17.680
StyleID
Hard-mask
16.866
17.141
17.072
17.009
Alpha
16.935
17.222
17.371
17.224
Appendix
Table 13: ArtFID comparison of four post-hoc compositing strategies for G-S and R-S baselines. Lower values are better, and bold indicates the strategy selected for each method and number of styles.
Figure 12: User-study interface showing the content image, style references, and method outputs rated using six 7-point Likert criteria.
Figure 13: User study radar charts for eight methods. (a)–(h) show per-method average scores, and (i) overlays all methods. Mean Likert scores are divided by 7 ; radial axes span 0.30 – 0.95 to make differences visible.
Figure 14: Qualitative scalability of MAST across 1 – 4 styles, multiple aspect ratios, and 512 – 1024 -pixel resolutions ( green : background).
Figure 15: Progressive addition of up to five styles under a fixed five-region spatial partition ( green : background).
Figure 16: Compositional interaction in the two-style setting ( green : background).
Figure 17: Regional style-fidelity comparison with the lowest-ArtFID G-S , R-S , and R-M baselines in the two-style setting ( green : background region). Enlarged views pair each style reference with its corresponding stylized region.
Precise spatial control in diffusion-based style transfer remains challenging. This challenge arises because diffusion models treat style as a global feature and lack explicit spatial grounding of style representations, making it difficult to restrict style application to specific objects or regions. To our knowledge, existing diffusion models are unable to perform true localized style transfer, typically relying on handcrafted masks or multi-stage post-processing that introduce boundary artifacts and limit generalization. To address this, we propose an attention-supervised diffusion framework that explicitly teaches the model where to apply a given style by aligning the attention scores of style tokens with object masks during training. Two complementary objectives, a Focus loss based on KL divergence and a Cover loss using binary cross-entropy, jointly encourage accurate localization and dense coverage. A modular LoRA-MoE design further enables efficient and scalable multi-style adaptation. To evaluate localized stylization, we introduce the Regional Style Editing Score, which measures Regional Style Matching through CLIP-based similarity within the target region and Identity Preservation via masked LPIPS and pixel-level consistency on unedited areas. Experiments show that our method achieves mask-free, single-object style transfer at inference, producing regionally accurate and visually coherent results that outperform existing diffusion-based editing approaches.
Bowen Chen, Jake Zuena, Alan C. Bovik +1
The University of Texas at Austin · Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
Reference-guided style transfer aims to preserve the semantic structure of a content image while transferring the visual appearance of a style reference. Recent diffusion-based methods achieve impressive stylization quality by exploiting strong pretrained generative priors. However, training-free approaches still face a difficult trade-off among style fidelity, content preservation, and content leakage. Direct style injection may unintentionally transfer semantic content from the style image, while fixed guidance schedules often ignore the time- and state-dependent nature of diffusion sampling. To address these limitations, we propose TRACE, a training-free diffusion style transfer framework with Time-adaptive Residual Attention Control and Content-Style Decomposition. TRACE first performs offline CLIP-based subspace analysis to separate content and style directions from paired data. During inference, it removes content-related components from the style reference and style-related components from the content reference to reduce leakage. It then injects style information through residual cross-attention and applies uncertainty-aware guidance to adapt the guidance signal at each denoising step. Experiments show that TRACE achieves a favorable trade-off between stylization and preservation. Compared with optimal-control-based baselines, TRACE substantially improves style fidelity (+17.28 CSD and +34.10 SRA). While, compared with stylization methods, it better preserves content structure (+12.80 DINO, +5.52 CLIP-I, and -8.19 LPIPS) and reduces directional semantic leakage by 29.5% in DCL. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/pixelchemy-research/TRACE.
Duc Khoan Le, Kim Ngoc Tran, Minh Nhat Le +5
Faculty of Information Technology, University of Science, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam · Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Diffusion models have demonstrated remarkable performance in image generation, particularly within the domain of style transfer. Prevailing style transfer approaches typically leverage pre-trained diffusion models' robust feature extraction capabilities alongside external modular control pathways to explicitly impose style guidance signals. However, these methods often fail to capture complex style reference or retain the identity of user-provided content images, thus falling into the trap of style-content balance. Thus, we propose a training-free style transfer approach via heterogeneous attention modulation (HAM) to protect identity information during image/text-guided style reference transfer, thereby addressing the style-content trade-off challenge. Specifically, we first introduces style noise initialization to initialize latent noise for diffusion. Then, during the diffusion process, it innovatively employs HAM for different attention mechanisms, including Global Attention Regulation (GAR) and Local Attention Transplantation (LAT), which better preserving the details of the content image while capturing complex style references. Our approach is validated through a series of qualitative and quantitative experiments, achieving state-of-the-art performance on multiple quantitative metrics.
Yeqi He, Liang Li, Zhiwen Yang +3
Hangzhou Dianzi University · Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Macao Polytechnic University