Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 7 cited by

SeedEdit 3.0: Fast and High-Quality Generative Image Editing

T0 review · 5 major / 8 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 SeedEdit 3.0 argues that real-image editing can follow instructions, preserve identity, and run 8x faster by mixing heterogeneous data with meta-information and reward losses.

desk verdict Plausible industrial recipe, but the headline usability numbers rest on an unreleased benchmark that no one can check. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05083 v2 pith:PAFNBGBS submitted 2025-06-05 cs.CV

Peng Wang , Yichun Shi , Xiaochen Lian , Zhonghua Zhai , Xin Xia , Xuefeng Xiao , Weilin Huang , Jianchao Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords instructiveimageeditingdatacurationpipelinemeta-informationembeddingrewardlossdiffusiondistillationquantizationidentitypreservationtext-to-imagebackbone
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

This paper tries to establish that instruction-based editing of real photographs can simultaneously be much more instruction-faithful, much more identity-preserving, and much faster, by solving the data problem rather than only scaling the model. The central obstacle is that editing data come from very different worlds—synthesized pairs, specialist workflows, traditional editing operators, and video frames—and naively mixing them degrades performance. SeedEdit 3.0 claims to fix this with a meta-information strategy: every training pair is annotated with a task label, a re-caption describing exactly what changed, and fine-grained editing tags, and these labels are injected as embeddings that let the diffusion model tell the datasets apart while still sharing knowledge. On top of the upgraded Seedream 3.0 text-to-image backbone, the paper adds a joint training signal that combines the diffusion loss with several expert reward losses, and an acceleration pipeline (distillation plus quantization) that cuts end-to-end latency from about 64 seconds to about 8 seconds. The reported outcome is a best trade-off on an internal benchmark, with a 56.1% usability rate compared with 38.4% for SeedEdit 1.6, 37.1% for GPT-4o and 30.3% for Gemini 2.0.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the meta-info paradigm: a multi-granularity annotation attached to every training pair—task label, re-captioned prompt, and editing tags—fused into the diffusion model through dedicated task embeddings rather than prompt text. What it does is let a single unified model separate dataset-specific editing styles ("change to Paris" as background swap versus full repaint) while transferring shared knowledge, and it anchors the VLM's semantic output to the diffusion decoder's fine-grained detail. The second mechanism is joint learning: the rectified-flow diffusion loss is augmented with a weighted sum of expert reward losses, $$ \mathcal{L} = \mathbb{E}_{t,q}\|v_\$\theta$($x_t^{1}$,t|c,x_0)-(\epsilon-x_1)\|$_2^{2}$ + \sum_i \lambda_i R_i(x_0,x_1^*|c,t), $$ so that high-value attributes like face identity are optimized directly. The third is the acceleration stack (distillation with CFG distillation, a unified noise reference, and adaptive timestep sampling, plus hybrid quantization of GEMM and attention modules), which delivers the claimed ~8x end-to-end speedup.

What would settle it

Run the same human or GPT-scored evaluation on a released public benchmark, such as the HQ-Edit or MagicBrush test splits, counting failed and non-responsive generations as failures, and check whether SeedEdit 3.0's usability advantage over GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SeedEdit 3.0 claims that the main lever for real-image editing quality is data organization, not just model size. Mixing editing corpora from different sources hurts unless each sample carries meta-information: a coarse task label (synthesized edit, specialist operation, traditional operator, video-frame change), a decomposed re-caption that first lists similarities and differences between input and output and then derives the instruction, and pixel-level tags such as local edit, face preservation, structure preservation, and style preservation. These are injected as independent embeddings, which closes the feature gap between the vision-language encoder and the diffusion decoder and lets the model select the right editing "mode" for each request. Training jointly on the diffusion loss and several expert reward losses (face identity, structure, aesthetics) further improves consistency, and joint T2I training preserves the underlying generation ability on high-resolution inputs. With this recipe, the paper reports 56.1% usability on its internal benchmark, ahead of SeedEdit 1.6 (38.4%), GPT-4o (37.1%), and Gemini 2.0 (30.3%), while noting that GPT-4o still leads on pure instruction response.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on an unpublished internal benchmark where, for website-based competitors, the visually best of four replies is scored and non-responded queries are dropped; if that protocol favors SeedEdit's strengths, the reported margins may not generalize to real user requests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, a single unified model can absorb heterogeneous editing corpora at scale without letting dataset-specific styles corrupt each other, removing a bottleneck that has limited general-purpose editing models.
  • Real-photo editing in products can run at roughly 8 seconds per request end-to-end, making high-fidelity instruction-based editing practical in interactive apps.
  • The joint diffusion-plus-reward loss transfers the traits of expert models (face identity, structure, aesthetics) into one network, so separate post-processing or ensembling may become unnecessary.
  • The metric pattern (best trade-off, with GPT-4o still higher on pure instruction response) implies the practical target for editing models is a balance of instruction adherence, content preservation, and speed, not any single axis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The meta-info paradigm is a general recipe for mixing any data sources whose "styles" conflict, so it may transfer to other image-to-image tasks (stylization, restoration, super-resolution) that suffer from dataset-mode collapse.
  • If the reward models continue improving, the paper's own observation that VLM-based unified rewards underperform expert models suggests a single VLM judge could eventually replace the reward ensemble; this is testable by swapping the reward set with a stronger VLM.
  • The acceleration ideas are described for the editing pipeline but are mostly T2I-agnostic: the unified noise reference and instance-aware trajectories could plausibly speed up other diffusion-based editors, which a direct experiment on public T2I benchmarks could check.
  • A neutral test of the headline numbers would need the benchmark released; a public-benchmark replication would be the decisive check on whether the 56.1% margin generalizes.
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

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SeedEdit 3.0, an instruction-based image editing system built on the Seedream 3.0 T2I model. The authors propose an enhanced data curation pipeline with multi-granularity meta-information (task labels, recaptions, editing tags), a joint training objective combining diffusion loss with reward losses, and an inference-acceleration pipeline based on distillation, quantization, and adaptive timestep sampling. The central empirical claims are (i) that on an internal real-image editing benchmark, SeedEdit 3.0 achieves a usability rate of 56.1% versus 38.4% for SeedEdit 1.6, 37.1% for GPT-4o, and 30.3% for Gemini 2.0, and (ii) that the optimized pipeline delivers an 8x end-to-end inference speedup, from approximately 64 s to 8 s, excluding the VLM stage.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, SeedEdit 3.0 would represent a meaningful advance in practical instruction-based image editing: it claims to combine state-of-the-art instruction following and content/identity preservation with significantly lower latency than commercial rivals. The data curation meta-info paradigm and the joint reward-diffusion training are potentially useful contributions to the community. The paper also benefits from concrete qualitative comparisons and deployment context. However, the headline numbers rest on an unreleased internal benchmark whose evaluation protocol has several unaddressed methodological weaknesses, and the speedup claim is insufficiently specified to be reproducible. These issues currently prevent the paper from supporting its central claims at the level expected for a scientific publication.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The internal benchmark is described as 'a few hundred testing images' with no exact count, no confidence intervals, no inter-rater agreement, and no release plan. The reported margin between SeedEdit 3.0 (56.1%) and GPT-4o (37.1%) could easily be within sampling noise for a few hundred images. Please report the exact number of test images and human raters, compute confidence intervals or significance tests for the usability and satisfaction rates, and describe how the test set was constructed to avoid selection bias. Releasing the benchmark or running the same protocol on a public benchmark such as MagicBrush or HQ-Edit would greatly increase the credibility of the comparison.
  2. [Sec. 4.2] The description 'we run others with their website chatting window with 4 times and choose the visually best one' is not a repeatable evaluation protocol. Choosing the 'visually best' of four attempts is a subjective selection that could introduce bias, and omitting 'non-responded image queries' for GPT-4o and Gemini removes failure cases from the denominator. While both choices are favorable to the competitors in expectation, they make the comparison non-transparent and prevent an apples-to-apples assessment. Please report single-run results, treat non-responses as failures in a secondary analysis, and specify who performed the visual selection and under what instructions.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4.1] The manuscript states that high-quality traditional instruction-based editing data are assigned a 'default editing label' which is 'also applied to all test inputs.' This creates a matched training/inference distribution for SeedEdit 3.0 on the internal benchmark, whereas competitors do not have access to this label. If the internal test set is dominated by traditional edit types, the comparison may favor SeedEdit 3.0 by construction. Please report the distribution of task labels/tags in the test set and provide performance breakdowns per task category, and clarify whether the default label is always optimal at test time or whether a more general label-conditioning strategy is used.
  4. [Sec. 3.5.2] The speedup claim is not reproducible as stated. The sentence 'Excluding the VLM stage, our combined distillation and quantization pipeline delivers an 8×end-to-end inference speedup, reducing total runtime from approximately 64 s to 8 s' is internally inconsistent: excluding the VLM stage cannot be an 'end-to-end' measurement. Moreover, the manuscript elsewhere reports '10-15s per image' compared to '50-60s per image' for GPT-4o (Sec. 4.2), which does not match the '64s to 8s' figures. Please specify hardware, batch size, input resolution, number of sampling steps, quantization bit-width, and whether the VLM and reward models are included in the timing; also reconcile the different speed numbers across the paper.
  5. [Sec. 3.5.1] The claim 'Our theoretical analysis further shows that this design maximizes the joint likelihood of the forward (data-to-noise) and reverse (noise-to-data) trajectories' is not supported by any derivation or reference in the manuscript. This is a strong mathematical claim about the unified noise reference, and it should either be proved in an appendix or removed. As written, it is an unsubstantiated assertion rather than a result.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'helpfult' in the abstract should be 'helpful'.
  2. [Eq. (1)] Equation (1) has garbled notation: 'v_theta(xt1, t|c, x0)' should be written with proper subscript/superscript formatting (e.g., 'v_theta(x_t | t, c, x_0)'), and the text introduces 'I_0' and 'I_1' while the equation uses 'x_0' and 'x_1'. This makes the loss definition hard to parse.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'Dot size represent roughly the model size' and 'We illustrate hypothesized size of GPT4o and Gemini2.0 based on their speed.' Since model sizes are only hypothesized, this should be stated more carefully and the basis for the estimate should be given.
  4. [Sec. 3.5.1] There is a duplicated word: 'while while preserving the ability to adjust guidance strength on demand.'
  5. [Sec. 4.1] The phrase 'CLIP image simlairty' should be 'CLIP image similarity', and 'Quatitative' in the Fig. 6 caption should be 'Quantitative'.
  6. [Sec. 2] The phrase 'attention crontrol' should be 'attention control'.
  7. [Sec. 3.1.1] The word 'orbservation' should be 'observation'.
  8. [References] Reference [13] is cited for rectified flow matching but lists 'Black Forest Labs. Flux'; the rectified flow formulation should be attributed to the original source (e.g., Liu et al., 2022) or the citation should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported usability-rate and speed improvements are empirical measurements, not derivations from their own inputs.

full rationale

SeedEdit 3.0 is a systems report: the claimed gains (56.1% usability vs. 38.4%/37.1%/30.3%, and the 8x speedup) are measurements on an internal benchmark and an inference pipeline, not conclusions derived from the equations. The training loss in Eq. (1) combines a rectified-flow diffusion term with reward terms, but no evaluation number in Sec. 4 is a closed-form consequence of that loss. The internal benchmark described in Sec. 4.1 is not released, the speedup in Sec. 3.5.2 omits the VLM stage and does not state hardware or step count, and Sec. 4.2 says commercial systems were run 4 times with the visually best result chosen and non-responded GPT-4o/Gemini queries were omitted; these are fairness and verifiability concerns, not circularity, because no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no result is equivalent by construction to an input. The paper builds on prior self-cited systems (Seedream 3.0 [22], SeedVLM [24], SeedEdit [27], Hyper-SD [21], RayFlow [25]), but those citations are used as building blocks for an incremental engineering contribution and are not invoked as an external uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification of a derived result. Using the same GPT-4o model as both judge and competitor is self-referential, but omitting competitors' non-responses biases the comparison against SeedEdit, so the reported margins are not logically forced by the protocol. Under the requirement to exhibit a specific reduction, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on internal evaluation, internal data annotation models, and a set of unspecified training hyperparameters. No independent evidence is provided that would allow the reader to verify the model's behavior outside the described internal pipeline.

free parameters (4)
  • Reward loss weights lambda_i = not specified
    In Eq. 1, the composite loss sums diffusion loss and reward terms weighted by lambda_i; the weights are not reported and are presumably tuned on internal validation. The central training claim depends on them.
  • CFG scales (image CFG and text CFG) = not specified
    The trade-off curves in Fig. 6 are obtained by changing image and text CFG; the chosen operating point for the reported usability rate is not stated.
  • Usability threshold (score <3) = 3 on 0-5 scale
    The central usability rate is defined by a cutoff chosen by the authors in Sec. 4.1; different cutoffs would change the headline numbers.
  • Timestep distribution parameters for adaptive sampling = learned
    The distillation section introduces a data-driven timestep distribution; specifics are not given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The internal benchmark of a few hundred real and generated images is representative of general user editing requests.
    Sec. 4.1 states the test images were collected by the authors and include a wide range of operations; no public release or cross-validation against public benchmarks is provided.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o judge scores correlate with human preference for editing quality.
    Sec. 4.1 uses GPT scores for quick machine evaluation; the paper asserts alignment with human feeling (Sec. 4.2) but gives no correlation numbers. GPT-4o is also one of the compared systems.
  • domain assumption SeedVLM annotations (task labels, recaptions, tags) are accurate enough to serve as training conditions.
    Sec. 3.2 relies on VLM-based annotation without quality audits; errors would propagate into the trained model.
  • standard math Rectified flow matching is a valid diffusion training objective.
    Adopted from [13] in Sec. 3.4; standard usage, no proof needed.
  • ad hoc to paper Omitting non-responded queries from competitor evaluations does not unfairly affect the comparison.
    Sec. 4.2 omits non-responded queries for GPT-4o and Gemini; if non-response correlates with task difficulty, this biases the comparison in favor of the competitors.
invented entities (1)
  • Unified noise reference vector
    purpose: Used in Sec. 3.5.1 as a constant guide at each timestep to align the denoising process and reduce sampling steps.
    Introduced in this paper; effect is shown only through internal speed and quality claims and a hand-wavy 'theoretical analysis' with no proof. No external falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SeedEdit 3.0: Fast and High-Quality Generative Image Editing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PAFNBGBS

@misc{pith2026250605083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SeedEdit 3.0: Fast and High-Quality Generative Image Editing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PAFNBGBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05083}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce SeedEdit 3.0, in companion with our T2I model Seedream 3.0, which significantly improves over our previous SeedEdit versions in both aspects of edit instruction following and image content (e.g., ID/IP) preservation on real image inputs. Additional to model upgrading with T2I, in this report, we present several key improvements. First, we develop an enhanced data curation pipeline with a meta-info paradigm and meta-info embedding strategy that help mix images from multiple data sources. This allows us to scale editing data effectively, and meta information is helpfult to connect VLM with diffusion model more closely. Second, we introduce a joint learning pipeline for computing a diffusion loss and reward losses. Finally, we evaluate SeedEdit 3.0 on our testing benchmarks, for real/synthetic image editing, where it achieves a best trade-off between multiple aspects, yielding a high usability rate of 56.1%, compared to SeedEdit 1.6 (38.4%), GPT4o (37.1%) and Gemini 2.0 (30.3%).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. From Synthetic to Real: Toward Identity-Consistent Makeup Transfer with Synthetic and Real Data

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The work creates identity-consistent synthetic makeup data via ConsistentBeauty and adapts models to real images using reinforcement learning in RealBeauty, achieving better identity preservation and real-world perfor...

  2. Under One Sun: Multi-Object Generative Perception of Materials and Illumination

    cs.CV 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Factorizing video editing into semantic-token anchoring and motion-restoration pre-training produces strong zero-shot and SOTA open-source instruction-guided video edits without heavy external structural priors.

  3. EvoMakeup: High-Fidelity and Controllable Makeup Editing with MakeupQuad

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new synthetic paired dataset and a distillation-aware framework enable a single model to do reference-based and text-guided facial makeup editing that transfers to real photos.

  4. GPT-IMAGE-EDIT-1.5M: A Million-Scale, GPT-Generated Image Dataset

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper introduces GPT-IMAGE-EDIT-1.5M, a 1.5-million-triplet image-editing dataset refined by GPT-4o, and shows that fine-tuning FluxKontext on it achieves state-of-the-art open-source scores on GEdit-EN and Complex-Edit.

  5. DreamPoster: A Unified Framework for Image-Conditioned Generative Poster Design

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    DreamPoster fine-tunes Seedream3.0 with a deconstruction-recaptioning dataset pipeline and a three-stage curriculum to turn image-plus-text inputs into finished posters, reporting substantially higher usability than G...

  6. ByteMorph: Benchmarking Instruction-Guided Image Editing with Non-Rigid Motions

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A released 6.4 million pair dataset and 613 sample benchmark for instruction-guided image editing of non-rigid motions, plus a Flux.1-dev based baseline that outperforms open-source methods on the new benchmark.

  7. Instruction-based Image Editing: A Survey on Data, Models, Evaluation, and Applications

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of instruction-based image editing plus a new 21-task benchmark, CDD-IIE, on which ten open models are scored by human experts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    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, pages 18392–18402, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  3. [3]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 22560–22570, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Multimodal representation alignment for image generation: Text-image interleaved control is easier than you think

    Liang Chen, Shuai Bai, Wenhao Chai, Weichu Xie, Haozhe Zhao, Leon Vinci, Junyang Lin, and Baobao Chang. Multimodal representation alignment for image generation: Text-image interleaved control is easier than you think. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20172, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Comfyui: The most powerful and modular stable diffusion gui.https://github.com/ comfyanonymous/ComfyUI, 2023

    comfyanonymous et al. Comfyui: The most powerful and modular stable diffusion gui.https://github.com/ comfyanonymous/ComfyUI, 2023. Accessed: May 15, 2025

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Patch n’pack: Navit, a vision transformer for any aspect ratio and resolution.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:2252– 2274, 2023

    Mostafa Dehghani, Basil Mustafa, Josip Djolonga, Jonathan Heek, Matthias Minderer, Mathilde Caron, Andreas Steiner, Joan Puigcerver, Robert Geirhos, Ibrahim M Alabdulmohsin, et al. Patch n’pack: Navit, a vision transformer for any aspect ratio and resolution.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:2252– 2274, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Dit4edit: Diffusion transformer for image editing

    Kunyu Feng, Yue Ma, Bingyuan Wang, Chenyang Qi, Haozhe Chen, Qifeng Chen, and Zeyu Wang. Dit4edit: Diffusion transformer for image editing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 2969–2977, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Experiment with gemini 2.0 flash native image generation, 2024

    Google Gemini2. Experiment with gemini 2.0 flash native image generation, 2024. https://developers. googleblog.com/en/experiment-with-gemini-20-flash-native-image-generation/

    work page 2024

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Smartedit: Exploring complex instruction-based image editing with multimodal large language models

    Yuzhou Huang, Liangbin Xie, Xintao Wang, Ziyang Yuan, Xiaodong Cun, Yixiao Ge, Jiantao Zhou, Chao Dong, Rui Huang, Ruimao Zhang, et al. Smartedit: Exploring complex instruction-based image editing with multimodal large language models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference ...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Hq-edit: Ahigh-quality dataset for instruc-tion based image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09990, 2024

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

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

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

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

    2024

  6. [14]

    Mogao: An omni foundation model for interleaved multi-modal generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05472, 2025

    Chao Liao, Liyang Liu, Xun Wang, Zhengxiong Luo, Xinyu Zhang, Wenliang Zhao, Jie Wu, Liang Li, Zhi Tian, and Weilin Huang. Mogao: An omni foundation model for interleaved multi-modal generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05472, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Schedule your edit: A simple yet effective diffusion noise schedule for image editing

    Haonan Lin, Yan Chen, Jiahao Wang, Wenbin An, Mengmeng Wang, Feng Tian, Yong Liu, Guang Dai, Jingdong Wang, and Qianying Wang. Schedule your edit: A simple yet effective diffusion noise schedule for image editing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:115712–11...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Step1x-edit: A practical framework for general image editing.arXiv preprintarXiv:2504.17761, 2025

    Shiyu Liu, Yucheng Han, Peng Xing, Fukun Yin, Rui Wang, Wei Cheng, Jiaqi Liao, Yingming Wang, Honghao Fu, Chunrui Han, et al. Step1x-edit: A practical framework for general image editing.arXiv preprintarXiv:2504.17761, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6038–6047, 2023. 12

    2023

  10. [18]

    The blessing of randomness: Sde beats ode in general diffusion-based image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01410, 2023

    Shen Nie, Hanzhong Allan Guo, Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Chenyu Zheng, and Chongxuan Li. The blessing of randomness: Sde beats ode in general diffusion-based image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01410, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dall·e 3 system card, 2023.https://cdn.openai.com/papers/DALL_E_3_System_Card.pdf

    OpenAI. Dall·e 3 system card, 2023.https://cdn.openai.com/papers/DALL_E_3_System_Card.pdf

    2023

  12. [20]

    Transfer between modalities with metaqueries.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06256, 2025

    Xichen Pan, Satya Narayan Shukla, Aashu Singh, Zhuokai Zhao, Shlok Kumar Mishra, Jialiang Wang, Zhiyang Xu, Jiuhai Chen, Kunpeng Li, Felix Juefei-Xu, et al. Transfer between modalities with metaqueries.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06256, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hyper-sd: Trajectory segmented consistency model for efficient image synthesis.Advancesin Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:117340–117362, 2025

    Yuxi Ren, Xin Xia, Yanzuo Lu, Jiacheng Zhang, Jie Wu, Pan Xie, Xing Wang, and Xuefeng Xiao. Hyper-sd: Trajectory segmented consistency model for efficient image synthesis.Advancesin Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:117340–117362, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Seedream 3.0 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11346, 2025

    ByteDance Seed Vision T2I Team. Seedream 3.0 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11346, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Seedream 2.0: A native chinese-english bilingual image generation foundation model

    ByteDance Seed Vision Team. Seedream 2.0: A native chinese-english bilingual image generation foundation model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07703, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Seed1.5-vl technical report, 2025

    Bytedance Seed Vision Understanding Team. Seed1.5-vl technical report, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2505.07062

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Rayflow: Instance-aware diffusion acceleration via adaptive flow trajectories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07699, 2025

    Huiyang Shao, Xin Xia, Yuhong Yang, Yuxi Ren, Xing Wang, and Xuefeng Xiao. Rayflow: Instance-aware diffusion acceleration via adaptive flow trajectories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07699, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages ...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Seededit: Align image re-generation to image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06686, 2024

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, and Weilin Huang. Seededit: Align image re-generation to image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06686, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    Instructedit: Improving automatic masks for diffusion-based image editing with user instructions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18047, 2023

    Qian Wang, Biao Zhang, Michael Birsak, and Peter Wonka. Instructedit: Improving automatic masks for diffusion-based image editing with user instructions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18047, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Omniedit: Building image editing generalist models through specialist supervision

    Cong Wei, Zheyang Xiong, Weiming Ren, Xeron Du, Ge Zhang, and Wenhu Chen. Omniedit: Building image editing generalist models through specialist supervision. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Omnigen: Unified image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11340, 2024

    Shitao Xiao, Yueze Wang, Junjie Zhou, Huaying Yuan, Xingrun Xing, Ruiran Yan, Chaofan Li, Shuting Wang, Tiejun Huang, and Zheng Liu. Omnigen: Unified image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11340, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Mastering text-to-image diffusion: Recaptioning, planning, and generating with multimodal llms

    Ling Yang, Zhaochen Yu, Chenlin Meng, Minkai Xu, Stefano Ermon, and Bin Cui. Mastering text-to-image diffusion: Recaptioning, planning, and generating with multimodal llms. InForty-firstInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Anyedit: Mastering unified high-quality image editing for any idea.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15738, 2024

    Qifan Yu, Wei Chow, Zhongqi Yue, Kaihang Pan, Yang Wu, Xiaoyang Wan, Juncheng Li, Siliang Tang, Hanwang Zhang, and Yueting Zhuang. Anyedit: Mastering unified high-quality image editing for any idea.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15738, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Promptfix: You prompt and we fix the photo,

    Yongsheng Yu, Ziyun Zeng, Hang Hua, Jianlong Fu, and Jiebo Luo. Promptfix: You prompt and we fix the photo,

  27. [35]

    Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction-guided image editing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:31428–31449, 2023

    Kai Zhang, Lingbo Mo, Wenhu Chen, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction-guided image editing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:31428–31449, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Hive: Harnessing human feedback for instructional visual editing

    Shu Zhang, Xinyi Yang, Yihao Feng, Can Qin, Chia-Chih Chen, Ning Yu, Zeyuan Chen, Huan Wang, Silvio Savarese, Stefano Ermon, et al. Hive: Harnessing human feedback for instructional visual editing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Ultraedit: Instruction-based fine-grained image editing at scale.Advancesin Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:3058–3093, 2024

    Haozhe Zhao, Xiaojian Shawn 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.Advancesin Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:3058–3093, 2024. 13

    2024

  30. [38]

    Transfusion: Predict the next token and diffuse images with one multi-modal model

    Chunting Zhou, Lili Yu, Arun Babu, Kushal Tirumala, Michihiro Yasunaga, Leonid Shamis, Jacob Kahn, Xuezhe Ma, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. Transfusion: Predict the next token and diffuse images with one multi-modal model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11039, 2024. 14 Appendix ...

    2024 arXiv

  31. [2024]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16785

    arXiv

Pith tools

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