Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Beyond Editing Pairs: Fine-Grained Instructional Image Editing via Multi-Scale Learnable Regions

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that instruction-driven image editing can be trained from ordinary text-image pairs by learning multi-scale edit regions, avoiding editing-pair datasets while matching benchmark performance.

desk verdict Promising paradigm for dataset-free instruction editing, but the region-predictor training as described is likely non-differentiable; that is the flaw to resolve. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19352 v1 pith:J5BRKPOV submitted 2025-05-25 cs.CV

Chenrui Ma , Xi Xiao , Tianyang Wang , Yanning Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords instruction-drivenimageeditingtext-imagepairsmulti-scalelearnableregionsCLIPsupervisionwithoutpaireddataregion-awaregenerationlargelanguagemodelcaptionsdiffusionmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to remove the main bottleneck of instruction-driven image editing: the need for large datasets of (image, instruction, edited-image) triples, which are costly to construct and often contain artifacts. Its proposed training signal is the alignment already present in ordinary image-caption pairs. Given a source image and an editing instruction, a multimodal language model captions the image and a large language model rewrites that caption into a target description; the training objective then teaches a lightweight fusion and region-prediction module to localize, in the CLIP feature map, the patches that the edit should touch. At inference, the predicted multi-scale region mask conditions a pretrained text-to-image generator, with the generator itself left untouched. If the approach holds, instruction editing becomes scalable to web-scale caption data and portable across generative backbones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the multi-scale learnable region: a per-patch probability map over the CLIP visual feature map that says how likely each patch is to belong to the edit. It is produced by cross-attention between image patch features and instruction token features, a self-attention refinement, and a token-wise MLP with a sigmoid, then thresholded and reshaped into a 2D mask. Two loss families train it: a semantic alignment loss that pulls the instruction-fused features toward the target description embedding while keeping the original image features aligned with the original description, and a CLIP supervision loss composed of global guidance, directional text-image alignment, and patch-similarity preservation. The mask then conditions a frozen region-aware generative model, such as latent diffusion inpainting, which blends the generated content inside the mask with the original latent outside it.

What would settle it

Run the same training pipeline on a random 10% of samples whose target description is replaced by another image's caption. If Emu Edit CLIP direction similarity stays near the reported 0.1088, the text-alignment supervision is not doing the claimed localization work; if it collapses, the method's success depends on the synthetic description quality. Alternatively, replace the learned region mask with a fixed random patch mask; if benchmark metrics do not drop, the learnable region is not the source of the gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a precise, localized edit can be produced without ever seeing a ground-truth edited image, provided the model learns which image regions should change. The paper argues that the difference between the original description and an LLM-synthesized target description, combined with CLIP's joint image-text space, is enough supervision: the fused image-instruction features are pushed toward the target text embedding, and a CLIP supervision loss on the generated image aligns both global semantics and the direction of change while preserving patch-level structure. The resulting probability map over image patches, thresholded into an edit mask, tells a frozen text-to-image model where to inpaint, so edits are confined to the learned region and can range from a small object change to a large additive edit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the LLM-generated target descriptions, derived from the original caption plus the instruction, are faithful enough that treating caption alignment as editing supervision teaches the model where to edit; if those synthesized descriptions are noisy or degenerate, the learned region predictor and losses inherit the error, and the paper gives no quality analysis of this synthetic supervision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Training data for instruction editing can be scaled to the billion-pair corpora already used in text-to-image pretraining; the paper shows monotone gains from 1M to 5M pairs.
  • Because the generator is frozen, the same trained region predictor can drive diffusion models (SD, FLUX), autoregressive models (VAR), and non-autoregressive models (MaskGIT) without retraining.
  • Edits are naturally localized and scale-adaptive, covering addition, removal, and modification operations while preserving unedited content.
  • Benchmark performance on Emu Edit and MagicBrush is comparable to or better than pair-trained baselines while using no editing-pair data.
  • The method handles both single-turn and multi-turn editing on the MagicBrush test set, with particular strength in following semantic instructions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper: the 5M-pair ceiling appears to be a computational choice rather than a limit, since the supervision signal is only caption alignment and much larger text-image corpora already exist.
  • The method's success is tied to the quality of LLM-generated target descriptions; a direct stress test would be to corrupt a fraction of target captions and observe whether region-prediction quality drops, which the paper does not report.
  • The paper's own limitation statement pinpoints CLIP's weak spatial reasoning, as with instructions like "move the cat to the sofa," which suggests the next bottleneck is semantic understanding rather than region geometry and points to connecting MLLM reasoning into mask prediction.
  • Because only the small fusion and region module is trainable, the approach could be adapted cheaply to any generative backbone that accepts mask or region conditioning, as long as the backbone exposes such an interface.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a training paradigm for instruction-driven image editing that avoids editing-pair datasets. Given an input image and an editing instruction, an MLLM produces a source description and an LLM produces a target description; CLIP embeddings of these descriptions supervise a feature-fusion and region-prediction module. The predicted region mask is used to condition a frozen pre-trained text-to-image generator (Stable Diffusion in the main experiments) via inpainting, so that only the masked region is modified. Training uses two losses: a semantic-alignment loss on intermediate fused features and a composite CLIP supervision loss on the final edited image. Experiments on the Emu Edit and MagicBrush benchmarks report competitive or state-of-the-art numbers across several metrics, plus ablations and qualitative results, with additional compatibility demos on FLUX, VAR, and MaskGIT.

Significance. If the training pipeline is realizable as described, the paper would make a useful contribution by replacing scarce editing-pair data with abundant text-image pairs and by keeping the generative backbone frozen. The paper's strengths include the large-scale training-data idea, the use of CLIP-based supervision, compatibility with several generative backbones, and the inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative evaluations. However, the central learning mechanism is not fully specified, several reported metrics are directly minimized by the loss, and the experimental evidence is weaker than the abstract's 'state-of-the-art' claim. These issues must be resolved before the contribution can be fairly assessed.

major comments (6)
  1. [§3.2, §3.3, Appendix A.3] The region-prediction MLP (Eq. 3) is supervised only by LCLIP (Eq. 10), computed on the final generated image Xres, yet Xres is produced by a hard-thresholded mask Mregion followed by the DDIM inpainting procedure of Eqs. (16)-(23). A hard threshold has zero derivative almost everywhere, and the paper does not specify whether training uses the soft sigmoid Pregion, a straight-through estimator, or a continuous relaxation. Without one of these, the MLP may receive no gradient and the learnable region cannot be trained. This is load-bearing because the learnable region is the paper's core novelty, so the training procedure must be stated precisely.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (8), Table 2] There is a direct circularity between the loss and the reported metrics: LCLIPd (Eq. 8) is exactly the negation of the CLIPdir metric, and LCLIPg (Eq. 7) is exactly the negation of the CLIPout metric. The reported improvements on CLIPdir and CLIPout are therefore at least partly a consequence of direct optimization rather than emergent generalization. The paper should report comparisons on metrics not present in the loss (for example, L1, DINO, and human evaluation) and explicitly discuss this overlap, including how it affects the comparison with baselines that do not optimize these objectives.
  3. [§3.2 vs. Appendix A.2] Section 3.2 and the Introduction claim that the generative model is not retrained or fine-tuned, but Appendix A.2 describes 'Training a Region-Conditioned Stable Diffusion Model' and gives a training loss LLDM-inpainting (Eq. 13). The manuscript needs to clarify whether the backbone is a pre-existing inpainting model or one trained by the authors; this distinction directly affects the claim of 'no retraining/fine-tuning of the generative model' and should be stated unambiguously.
  4. [§3.2, §4, Title] The method is described as 'multi-scale learnable regions,' but the architecture in Section 3.2 operates on a single set of patch-level ViT-L/14 features at one resolution. No multi-scale feature hierarchy, multi-resolution mask, or scale-selection mechanism is defined. Since 'multi-scale' is central to the title and to contribution 2, the paper should either describe the multi-scale mechanism or temper the claim to a single-scale learnable region.
  5. [§4, §3.1] The training data generation relies on LLM-synthesized editing instructions and target descriptions derived from original captions, but the paper provides no analysis of the quality, diversity, or failure modes of this automatic data construction. If the LLM often produces degenerate instructions or target descriptions that are identical to the source description, the learned region predictor and fusion modules will inherit those errors. The authors should provide statistics, examples, or a human evaluation of the synthesized instruction-target pairs.
  6. [§5.2, Tables 2-4] The quantitative evaluation reports single runs without error bars or statistical significance, and the results are mixed: on the MagicBrush multi-turn setting (Table 3), the proposed method does not outperform MagicBrush or UltraEdit on L1, L2, or DINO. The abstract's claim of 'state-of-the-art performance across various tasks and benchmarks' is therefore stronger than the evidence. The authors should add variance estimates and soften or qualify the SOTA claim. Additionally, no code is released, which makes the under-specified training pipeline difficult to verify.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (9)] There is a typo in the text preceding Eq. (9): 'extract thce patch-level features' should read 'extract the patch-level features.'
  2. [§4] The notation for the original description is inconsistent: the method uses to but Section 4 later refers to 'the orignal description Xo' and the inference stage mentions 'original description Xo.' Please use consistent notation throughout.
  3. [Table 3] In the Single-turn setting, RF-Solver's L2 value is reported as 0.312, which appears to be a typo (likely 0.0312). Please verify.
  4. [Appendix A.2] The heading 'Training a Region-Conditioned Stable Diffusion Model' is confusing because the main text says the generative model is not trained. Clarify whether this appendix describes a hypothetical training setup or an actual component of the method.
  5. [References] Reference [14] is a placeholder ('Example citation, requires actual source confirmation') and should be replaced with a proper citation or removed.
  6. [Figure 1] The figure caption mentions that gray-area components are removed at inference, but the legend is not explained in the text; please describe the trainable versus frozen components explicitly in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the training objectives and benchmark metrics share a CLIP formulation, but evaluation uses held-out ground-truth captions and independent content-preservation metrics, so the derivation is not looped.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that instruction-driven editing can be learned from text-image pairs with a multi-scale learnable region. Walking the derivation chain: original/target descriptions are produced by MLLM/LLM, CLIP embeddings of those descriptions supervise feature fusion and region prediction, and the pre-trained generative model is conditioned on the predicted mask. None of these steps injects the benchmark result into the training signal. The most plausible circularity candidate is the formal identity between LCLIPd = 1 - cos(Ires - Iori, Te - To) and the reported CLIPdir, and between LCLIPg = 1 - cos(Ires, Te) and CLIPout. This overlap is not circular in the strict sense: the losses are computed with text descriptions generated by the paper's own MLLM/LLM on training images, while the benchmark metrics are computed on held-out Emu Edit/MagicBrush samples using the benchmarks' ground-truth source/target captions; the model does not fit parameters to those captions or to the test set. Moreover, Table 2 and Table 3 also report L1, CLIP image similarity, and DINO similarity, which are not directly optimized by the stated losses. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears. The hard-thresholding of Pregion (Section 3.2) raises a trainability/differentiability concern, but that is a realizability issue, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger captures that the method depends on several unverified domain assumptions about CLIP, LLM/MLLM reliability, and the inpainting backbone, plus a number of manually chosen hyperparameters that are not reported.

free parameters (5)
  • α (overall loss weight for LsemAlign) = not reported
    Balances semantic alignment and CLIP supervision; chosen manually, not optimized.
  • β (overall loss weight for LCLIP) = not reported
    Balances semantic alignment and CLIP supervision; chosen manually, not optimized.
  • λg, λd, λs (CLIP loss weights) = not reported
    Weights for the three CLIP supervision terms in Eq. 10, chosen manually.
  • Mask threshold for Pregion = not reported
    Threshold used to binarize the probability map into Mregion; not specified.
  • Training subset size = 5M random samples
    They sample 5M pairs from LAION-style data; this is a manual choice and affects results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CLIP embeddings provide a reliable semantic space for aligning images and text descriptions.
    The entire method relies on CLIP cosine similarity for supervision (Eqs. 4-9) and for evaluation.
  • domain assumption The MLLM and LLM generate accurate original and target descriptions.
    Descriptions to and te are produced by Qwen2.5-VL and Qwen2.5 (Section 3.1); if these are wrong, the training signals are wrong.
  • ad hoc to paper LLM-synthesized instructions are diverse and representative of real user edits.
    Training data is created by prompting an LLM to generate tins and te from a single caption; no evidence is given that these cover the range of editing operations.
  • domain assumption Pre-trained text-to-image models can faithfully regenerate masked regions according to the text description.
    The method uses an inpainting-style conditioning (Appendix A) without fine-tuning; if the backbone cannot follow the mask and text, the editing fails.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Editing Pairs: Fine-Grained Instructional Image Editing via Multi-Scale Learnable Regions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5BRKPOV

@misc{pith2026250519352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Editing Pairs: Fine-Grained Instructional Image Editing via Multi-Scale Learnable Regions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5BRKPOV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19352}
}
read the original abstract

Current text-driven image editing methods typically follow one of two directions: relying on large-scale, high-quality editing pair datasets to improve editing precision and diversity, or exploring alternative dataset-free techniques. However, constructing large-scale editing datasets requires carefully designed pipelines, is time-consuming, and often results in unrealistic samples or unwanted artifacts. Meanwhile, dataset-free methods may suffer from limited instruction comprehension and restricted editing capabilities. Faced with these challenges, the present work develops a novel paradigm for instruction-driven image editing that leverages widely available and enormous text-image pairs, instead of relying on editing pair datasets. Our approach introduces a multi-scale learnable region to localize and guide the editing process. By treating the alignment between images and their textual descriptions as supervision and learning to generate task-specific editing regions, our method achieves high-fidelity, precise, and instruction-consistent image editing. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed approach attains state-of-the-art performance across various tasks and benchmarks, while exhibiting strong adaptability to various types of generative models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19352 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Framework of the proposed method. Including description text generation, editing feature semantic alignment, learnable edit region prediction, edited image generation and CLIP supervised loss calculation. means the parameters of the component remain fixed, and means the parameters of the component are activated for training. During the inference stage, the components in the gray area will be removed. Stable Diffusio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-Scale Learnable Region. The learnable region adapts to multi-scale editing requirements from different types of editing operations and varying sizes of target objects. 5 Experiment To evaluate the performance and effectiveness of our method, we conduct comprehensive experi￾ments, including both qualitative and quantitative evaluations, as well as observations derived from experimental results and user feedback… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of editing results produced by different methods. different contexts, producing high-quality edited images. Notably, the changes are localized within the learnable region, avoiding unintended modifications to the rest of the image. Furthermore, our method do…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Editing results produced by our method using different generative models. For each example, from left to right: original image, FLUX [19], VAR [39], and MaskGIT [8]. As illustrated in Implementation Details, our method is compatible with various generative models, as s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Influence of each loss component. The editing instruction is: "Remove the pendant from the dog." From left to right: original image, result without LsemAlign, result without LCLIP, and result using all loss terms. Each result includes both the learnable region and the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Instruction-driven image editing results. The first row shows additive operations, the second row shows removal operations, and the third and fourth rows illustrate modification operations. Our method is capable of performing various image editing tasks while constrain…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introducing llama 3.1: Our most capable models to date

    Meta AI. Introducing llama 3.1: Our most capable models to date. https://ai.meta.com/blog/ llama-3-1/, 2024. Accessed: April 2025. Note: Formal technical report might be available separately

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Introducing claude 3.5 sonnet

    Anthropic. Introducing claude 3.5 sonnet. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-5-sonnet ,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Qwen2.5-vl technical report, 2025

    Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, Humen Zhong, Yuanzhi Zhu, Mingkun Yang, Zhaohai Li, Jianqiang Wan, Pengfei Wang, Wei Ding, Zheren Fu, Yiheng Xu, Jiabo Ye, Xi Zhang, Tianbao Xie, Zesen Cheng, Hang Zhang, Zhibo Yang, Haiyang Xu, and Junyang Lin. Qwen2.5-vl technical report, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    iedit: Localised text-guided image editing with weak supervision

    Rumeysa Bodur, Erhan Gundogdu, Binod Bhattarai, Tae-Kyun Kim, Michael Donoser, and Loris Bazzani. iedit: Localised text-guided image editing with weak supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, pages 7426–7435, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Ledits++: Limitless image editing using text-to-image models

    Manuel Brack, Felix Friedrich, Katharia Kornmeier, Linoy Tsaban, Patrick Schramowski, Kristian Kersting, and Apolinario Passos. Ledits++: Limitless image editing using text-to-image models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 8861–8870, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A. Efros. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18392–18402, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing

    Mingdeng Cao, Xintao Wang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Yinqiang Zheng. Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 22560–22570, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Maskgit: Masked generative image transformer

    Huiwen Chang, Han Zhang, Lu Jiang, Ce Liu, and William T Freeman. Maskgit: Masked generative image transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 11315–11325, 2022

    2022

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Scaling instruction-finetuned language models

    Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Alex Castro-Ros, Marie Pellat, Kevin Robinso...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance, 2022

    Guillaume Couairon, Jakob Verbeek, Holger Schwenk, and Matthieu Cord. Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Vqgan-clip: Open domain image generation and editing with natural language guidance

    Katherine Crowson, Stella Biderman, Daniel Kornis, Dashiell Stander, Eric Hallahan, Louis Castricato, and Edward Raff. Vqgan-clip: Open domain image generation and editing with natural language guidance. In European conference on computer vision, pages 88–105. Springer, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Got: Unleashing reasoning capability of multimodal large language model for visual generation and editing

    Rongyao Fang, Chengqi Duan, Kun Wang, Linjiang Huang, Hao Li, Shilin Yan, Hao Tian, Xingyu Zeng, Rui Zhao, Jifeng Dai, et al. Got: Unleashing reasoning capability of multimodal large language model for visual generation and editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10639, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Pair diffusion: A comprehensive multimodal object-level image editor

    Vidit Goel, Elia Peruzzo, Yifan Jiang, Dejia Xu, Xingqian Xu, Nicu Sebe, Trevor Darrell, Zhangyang Wang, and Humphrey Shi. Pair diffusion: A comprehensive multimodal object-level image editor. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Gemini 2.5 pro announcement (placeholder)

    Google. Gemini 2.5 pro announcement (placeholder). Placeholder URL for Gemini 2.5 Pro announcement or technical details, 2025. Accessed: April 2025. Example citation, requires actual source confirmation

    2025

  7. [15]

    Focus on your instruction: Fine-grained and multi-instruction image editing by attention modulation

    Qin Guo and Tianwei Lin. Focus on your instruction: Fine-grained and multi-instruction image editing by attention modulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 6986–6996, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Prompt-to- prompt image editing with cross attention control, 2022

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to- prompt image editing with cross attention control, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Paralleledits: Efficient multi- aspect text-driven image editing with attention grouping

    Mingzhen Huang, Jialing Cai, Shan Jia, Vishnu Lokhande, and Siwei Lyu. Paralleledits: Efficient multi- aspect text-driven image editing with attention grouping. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:22569–22595, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Hq-edit: A high-quality dataset for instruction-based image editing

    Mude Hui, Siwei Yang, Bingchen Zhao, Yichun Shi, Heng Wang, Peng Wang, Yuyin Zhou, and Cihang Xie. Hq-edit: A high-quality dataset for instruction-based image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09990, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Black Forest Labs. Flux. https://github.com/black-forest-labs/flux , 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Zone: Zero-shot instruction-guided local editing

    Shanglin Li, Bohan Zeng, Yutang Feng, Sicheng Gao, Xiuhui Liu, Jiaming Liu, Lin Li, Xu Tang, Yao Hu, Jianzhuang Liu, and Baochang Zhang. Zone: Zero-shot instruction-guided local editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Text-driven image editing via learnable regions

    Yuanze Lin, Yi-Wen Chen, Yi-Hsuan Tsai, Lu Jiang, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Text-driven image editing via learnable regions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 7059–7068, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Referring image editing: Object-level image editing via referring expressions

    Chang Liu, Xiangtai Li, and Henghui Ding. Referring image editing: Object-level image editing via referring expressions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13128–13138, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Pd-gan: Probabilistic diverse gan for image inpainting

    Hongyu Liu, Ziyu Wan, Wei Huang, Yibing Song, Xintong Han, and Jing Liao. Pd-gan: Probabilistic diverse gan for image inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9371–9381, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 26296–26306, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    OpenAI. Gpt-4o. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/ , 2024. Accessed: April 2025. Note: Formal technical report might be available separately

    2024

  20. [28]

    Styleclip: Text-driven manipulation of stylegan imagery

    Or Patashnik, Zongze Wu, Eli Shechtman, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Dani Lischinski. Styleclip: Text-driven manipulation of stylegan imagery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 2085–2094, 2021. 11

    2021

  21. [29]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers, 2023

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of th...

    2021

  24. [32]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs

    Christoph Schuhmann, Richard Vencu, Romain Beaumont, Robert Kaczmarczyk, Clayton Mullis, Aarush Katta, Theo Coombes, Jenia Jitsev, and Aran Komatsuzaki. Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02114, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Wortsman, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in neural informa...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and generation tasks

    Shelly Sheynin, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Yuval Kirstain, Amit Zohar, Oron Ashual, Devi Parikh, and Yaniv Taigman. Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and generation tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , page...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Qwen2.5 technical report, 2024

    Qwen Team. Qwen2.5 technical report, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Qwen2.5-vl technical report, 2025

    Qwen Team. Qwen2.5-vl technical report, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Visual autoregressive modeling: Scalable image generation via next-scale prediction

    Keyu Tian, Yi Jiang, Zehuan Yuan, Bingyue Peng, and Liwei Wang. Visual autoregressive modeling: Scalable image generation via next-scale prediction. Advances in neural information processing systems , 37:84839–84865, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Plug-and-play diffusion features for text- driven image-to-image translation

    Narek Tumanyan, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text- driven image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1921–1930, 2023

    1921

  33. [41]

    Taming rectified flow for inversion and editing

    Jiangshan Wang, Junfu Pu, Zhongang Qi, Jiayi Guo, Yue Ma, Nisha Huang, Yuxin Chen, Xiu Li, and Ying Shan. Taming rectified flow for inversion and editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04746, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction-guided image editing

    Kai Zhang, Lingbo Mo, Wenhu Chen, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction-guided image editing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 31428–31449. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Ultraedit: Instruction-based fine-grained image editing at scale

    Haozhe Zhao, Xiaojian Ma, Liang Chen, Shuzheng Si, Rujie Wu, Kaikai An, Peiyu Yu, Minjia Zhang, Qing Li, and Baobao Chang. Ultraedit: Instruction-based fine-grained image editing at scale. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3058–3093. Curran Associate...

    2024

  36. [45]

    The original image X is encoded to z0 = E(X)

  37. [46]

    We define mtrain = 1 for regions to be inpainted and mtrain = 0 for regions to be preserved

    The training mask Mtrain is downsampled to the latent space resolution, mtrain ∈ {0, 1}h×w. We define mtrain = 1 for regions to be inpainted and mtrain = 0 for regions to be preserved

  38. [47]

    A common strategy for LDM inpainting [32] is to concatenate the noisy latent zt with the mask mtrain and the latent representation of the known (unmasked) regions (1 − mtrain) ⊙ z0

    The conditioning input for the U-Net is prepared. A common strategy for LDM inpainting [32] is to concatenate the noisy latent zt with the mask mtrain and the latent representation of the known (unmasked) regions (1 − mtrain) ⊙ z0. Let zmasked_context 0 = (1 − mtrain) ⊙ z0. Th...

  39. [48]

    The text prompt t is encoded: ctext = τtext(t)

  40. [49]

    A timestep t ∼ U({1, ..., T}) and noise ϵ ∼ N(0, I) are sampled

  41. [50]

    The noisy latent is formed: zt = √¯αtz0 + √1 − ¯αtϵ

  42. [51]

    The U-Net predicts the noise: ϵpred = ϵθ(zinp t , t, ctext). The model is trained by minimizing the loss: LLDM-inpainting = EX,t,Mtrain,ϵ,t ϵ − ϵθ(concat(√¯αtE(X) + √ 1 − ¯αtϵ, mtrain, (1 − mtrain) ⊙ E(X)), t, τtext(t)) 2 2 (13) This trains ϵθ to be aware of the mask and the c...

  43. [52]

    Here, m = 1 signifies the region to be inpainted/edited, and m = 0 signifies the region to be preserved

    Initialization: • Encode the source image into its initial latent representation: zsrc 0 = E(Xsrc) (14) • Encode the target text description into a conditioning embedding: ce = τtext(te) (15) • Downsample the edit region mask Mregion to the latent space resolution to obtain m ...

  44. [53]

    ,1: (a) Prepare U-Net Input: If the U-Net was trained for inpainting using channel concatenation (as in Eq

    Iterative Denoising (Reverse Diffusion): For t = T, T− 1, . . . ,1: (a) Prepare U-Net Input: If the U-Net was trained for inpainting using channel concatenation (as in Eq. 13), the input at step t is: zU-Net_input t = concat(zt, m,(1 − m) ⊙ zsrc 0 ) (16) The term (1 − m) ⊙ zsr...

  45. [54]

    For deterministic DDIM, σt = 0

    step is: zmodel t−1 = √¯αt−1 ˆz0|t + q 1 − ¯αt−1 − σ2 t · ϵpred,t + σt˜ϵt (21) where ˜ϵt ∼ N(0, I) is fresh noise (for σt > 0) or ˜ϵt = ϵpred,t if following certain interpre- tations. For deterministic DDIM, σt = 0. zmodel t−1 is the latent state fully generated by the model’s...

  46. [55]

    Move the cat to the sofa,

    Final Decoding: After T denoising steps, the resulting latent representation z0 (which is zt−1 from the last step where t = 1) is decoded back into pixel space to obtain the final edited image Xres: Xres = D(z0) (24) This inference process allows Stable Diffusion to perform ta...

  47. [2024]

    Note: Formal technical report might be available separately

    Accessed: April 2025. Note: Formal technical report might be available separately

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.