Rethinking Camouflage Image Generation towards a Training-Free Paradigm
Organizations: School of Automation, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, China.
Abstract
Camouflage image generation (CIG) aims to synthesize realistic camouflaged images by blending foreground objects into concealment-compatible background contexts. Achieving this objective requires jointly satisfying three coupled requirements: foreground preservation to retain target integrity, semantic compatibility to select plausible concealment contexts, and appearance assimilation to reduce visual discrepancies. Recent approaches predominantly rely on task-specific training on camouflage datasets to address these requirements, incurring substantial computational cost and limiting generalization beyond the training domain. To address these limitations, we formulate training-free CIG as a concealment-oriented paradigm that preserves the target while reducing its perceptual separability from the synthesized surroundings, rather than maintaining its visual prominence, without parameter updates. We instantiate this paradigm with FreeCam based on a frozen inpainting diffusion framework to preserve the foreground. Within this framework, a Contextual Reasoning Module exploits frozen multimodal priors to infer an environment favorable to concealment, thereby promoting semantic compatibility, while an Intrinsic Appearance Module extracts low-level color and texture cues from the foreground to guide background synthesis toward appearance assimilation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FreeCam achieves state-of-the-art generation quality and camouflage effectiveness without task-specific training, while its generated images provide synthetic supervision for camouflaged object detection and reduce target detectability under general object detectors.
Figures & tables
| Camouflaged Objects | Salient Objects | General Objects | Overall | |||||||
| Method | Paradigm | Training | FID | KID | FID | KID | FID | KID | FID | KID |
| LCGNet Li et al. (2022) [TMM] | CNN | Yes | 129.80 | 0.0504 | 136.24 | 0.0597 | 132.64 | 0.0548 | 129.88 | 0.0550 |
| TFill Zheng et al. (2022) [CVPR] | CNN | Yes | 63.74 | 0.0336 | 96.91 | 0.0453 | 122.44 | 0.0747 | 80.39 | 0.0438 |
| LDM Rombach et al. (2022) [CVPR] | Diffusion | Yes | 58.65 | 0.0380 | 107.38 | 0.0524 | 129.04 | 0.0748 | 84.48 | 0.0488 |
| LAKE-RED Zhao et al. (2024) [CVPR] | Diffusion | Yes | 39.55 | 0.0212 | 88.70 | 0.0428 | 102.67 | 0.0555 | 64.27 | 0.0355 |
| FACIG Chen et al. (2025) [ICME] | Diffusion | Yes | 27.61 | 0.0099 | 82.23 | 0.0326 | 96.94 | 0.0503 | 52.87 | 0.0229 |
| Camouflaged Objects | Salient Objects | General Objects | Overall | |||||||
| Method | Paradigm | Training | ||||||||
| LCGNet Li et al. (2022) [TMM] | CNN | Yes | 0.2724 | 0.4223 | 0.2845 | 0.3923 | 0.2212 | 0.4161 | 0.2618 | 0.4030 |
| TFill Zheng et al. (2022) [CVPR] | CNN | Yes | 0.2862 | 0.2771 | 0.2604 | 0.2968 | 0.2271 | 0.3130 | 0.2273 | 0.3164 |
| LDM Rombach et al. (2022) [CVPR] | Diffusion | Yes | 0.3361 | 0.3480 | 0.4012 | 0.4539 | 0.3692 | 0.4317 | 0.3804 | 0.4576 |
| LAKE-RED Zhao et al. (2024) [CVPR] | Diffusion | Yes | 0.3715 | 0.4208 | 0.3941 | 0.4764 | 0.3209 | 0.4621 | 0.3533 | 0.4436 |
| FACIG Chen et al. (2025) [ICME] | Diffusion | Yes | 0.5725 | 0.4515 | 0.3992 | 0.4843 | 0.3575 | 0.4520 | 0.4057 | 0.4586 |
| Method | Preprocessing | Inference | Total |
| LCGNet Li et al. (2022) | 70 min | 0.05 s | 70 min |
| LAKE-RED Zhao et al. (2024) | 5 h | 9.8 s | 5 h |
| FACIG Chen et al. (2025) | 6 h | 3.7 s | 6 h |
| CamAny Das and Gopalakrishnan (2025) | 1 day | 13.2 s | 1 day |
| CT-CIG Qian et al. (2026) | 8 h | 23.1 s | 8 h |
| FreeCam SD1.5 | 0 s | 8.3 s | 8.3 s |
| CRM | IAM-Color | IAM-Texture | KID | |
| ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | 13.326 | 0.2421 |
| IAM-based ablation without CRM | ||||
| ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | 8.981 | 0.7096 |
| ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | 11.424 | 0.6818 |
| ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 8.655 | 0.7631 |
| CRM-based ablation | ||||
| Prompt | KID | |
| Base (IAM) | 8.655 | 0.7631 |
| +Category | 8.135 | 0.7697 |
| +Description | 7.315 | 0.7846 |
| +Environment w/o Env.Set | 6.859 | 0.7959 |
| +Env.Set | 6.926 | 0.8029 |
| Filter | KID | |
| Sobel | 7.099 | 0.7994 |
| Laplacian | 7.203 | 0.8011 |
| Canny | 7.144 | 0.8002 |
| DoG | 7.065 | 0.8026 |
| High-pass | 6.926 | 0.8029 |
| Model | KID | |
| CLIP (ours) | 6.926 | 0.8029 |
| MAE He et al. (2022) | 8.058 | 0.7567 |
| SigLIP Zhai et al. (2023) | 6.676 | 0.8093 |
| DINOv3 Siméoni et al. (2025) | 6.663 | 0.8159 |
| CHAMELEON | CAMO | COD10K | NC4K | |||||||||||||
| Methods | ||||||||||||||||
| SINetv2 Fan et al. (2021) | ||||||||||||||||
| Base | 0.881 | 0.933 | 0.796 | 0.035 | 0.806 | 0.858 | 0.708 | 0.081 | 0.802 | 0.876 | 0.656 | 0.040 | 0.837 | 0.887 | 0.746 | 0.053 |
| +LAKE-RED 100% | 0.886 | 0.934 | 0.807 | 0.033 | 0.811 | 0.869 | 0.727 | 0.078 | 0.806 | 0.881 | 0.661 | 0.038 | 0.842 | 0.901 | 0.763 | 0.049 |
| +FreeCam 10% | 0.890 | 0.940 | 0.811 | 0.029 | 0.818 | 0.875 | 0.728 | 0.070 | 0.812 | 0.885 | 0.676 | 0.031 | 0.848 | 0.903 | 0.767 | 0.042 |
| +FreeCam 30% | 0.894 | 0.952 | 0.822 | 0.027 | 0.829 | 0.884 | 0.739 | 0.067 | 0.818 | 0.890 | 0.684 | 0.027 | 0.856 | 0.909 | 0.772 | 0.036 |
| Average Precision | Recall | Overlap | ||||
| Method | ||||||
| Overall | ||||||
| YOLOv10-X | 0.393 | 0.348 | 0.332 | 0.680 | 0.614 | 0.638 |
| +FreeCam SD1.5 | 0.372 | 0.224 | 0.224 | 0.533 | 0.383 | 0.473 |
| degradation | ||||||
| G-DINO-B | 0.394 | 0.331 | 0.311 | 0.785 | 0.712 | 0.738 |
Image Generation
Image generation studies models that create or edit images from text, examples, layouts, and other structured controls.
See all 474 papers