Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

One sketch model beats separate editors at both tasks

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 16:15 UTC pith:CE4HWAQV

load-bearing objection The paper's central trick—packing sketch, mask, and guidance into RGB channels and training on a pipeline-generated multi-step edit dataset—is solid engineering, but the headline SOTA margins are measured on the authors' own synthetic distribution and idealized redrawing strokes, so treat them as existence proofs, not proven superiority. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.14140 v2 pith:CE4HWAQV submitted 2025-12-16 cs.CV

SketchAssist: A Practical Assistant for Semantic Edits and Precise Local Redrawing

Han Zou , Yan Zhang , Ruiqi Yu , Cong Xie , Jie Huang , Zhenpeng Zhan This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords sketch editinginstruction-guided editingline-guided redrawingdiffusion transformermixture of expertsdata generation pipelineLoRAimage editing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that sketch editing can be unified as a single model operation: altering attributes from text instructions and redrawing local regions from hand-drawn lines both produce edited line art while preserving the original composition and style. To train it, the authors construct a synthetic data pipeline that creates controlled attribute-addition sequences, forms multi-step edit chains, and diversifies artistic styles, yielding paired sketch-editing examples at scale. The model itself minimally modifies a diffusion-transformer image editor: the three RGB channels are repurposed to carry the source sketch, a binary mask, and guidance lines, so one input interface serves both modes, and a task-guided mixture of experts inside the low-rank adapters routes computation between semantic and structural modes. Reported results are state-of-the-art on both tasks, with stronger instruction adherence and structural/style consistency than recent baselines on pipeline-generated test sets.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a single fine-tuned DiT-based editor can perform both instruction-guided sketch editing (adding, removing, or replacing attributes like clothing, hair, expression, background) and line-guided region redrawing (synthesizing a masked region from user strokes) without architectural changes. The gains come from two mechanisms: packing the source sketch, mask, and guide lines into the standard three-channel input, and a sparse mixture-of-experts layer that specializes per mode while sharing style/structure features. Quantitatively, it reports the best text-alignment score among instruction baselines and the best perceptual/structure scores among redraw

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the repurposed RGB input: because sketches are essentially monochrome, the red channel carries the source sketch (with the masked area removed for redrawing), the green channel carries the binary edit mask, and the blue channel carries the user's line guidance—turning two different tasks into one conditional-input format with no extra channels or pipeline. Supporting this, Task-guided Mixture-of-Experts (T-MoE) splits each LoRA layer into a shared branch and four expert branches, routing the top two experts from concatenated text and visual features, so the model can adapt to the current editing mode. The synthetic data pipeline supplies the paired supervision:

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that pipeline-generated test sketches, text prompts, and guidance lines faithfully represent real artists' sketches and instructions, since the quantitative results and user studies all use data produced by the same synthetic pipeline.

What would settle it

Have artists edit their own original sketches with free-form instructions and rough hand-drawn strokes in a small controlled study. If the model's edits are judged by artists (or by held-out metrics on these real inputs) to be no better than dedicated baselines—or if the reported CLIP/DINO/LPIPS gaps shrink to negligible on real inputs—the central claim of state-of-the-art generality fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A single interactive tool can serve both semantic edits and precise local redraws, so an artist can iterate between 'add angry expression' and hand-drawn refinements without switching models.
  • The RGB-packing trick means the same pretrained diffusion-transformer editor can be fine-tuned for a new control signal without altering the network's input dimensions.
  • Training on structurally aligned synthetic pairs yields a model that preserves pose and composition while changing attributes, addressing a known failure of prompt-based editors.
  • The data pipeline is a reusable recipe for generating large paired sketch-edit datasets, which could be adapted to other sparse line-art domains.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the test set is pipeline-generated, the reported margins are likely optimistic for real artist strokes and instructions; a hand-drawn validation set is the natural next check.
  • The same channel-packing idea could extend to other monochrome modalities (blueprints, diagrams, manga), where multiple control signals need to share a single RGB input.
  • The T-MoE pattern—shared adapter for common features, sparse expert adapters per mode—is a general recipe for unifying task modes in instruction-based editors, potentially transferable to natural-image editing if a suitable input packing is found.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents SketchAssist, a unified sketch-editing framework built on FLUX.1-Kontext that handles both instruction-guided semantic edits and line-guided region redrawing. The authors introduce a controllable synthetic data-generation pipeline (attribute-addition sequences, cross-sequence sampling, style diversification, and simulated redrawing pairs), a multi-channel RGB condition encoding that repurposes the three color channels for sketch, mask, and guidance, and a Task-guided Mixture-of-Experts (T-MoE) integrated into LoRA layers. Experiments on 200-sample pipeline-generated test sets per task report improved CLIP, DINO, LPIPS, VIEScore, and user-study preference over recent baselines, leading to a state-of-the-art claim on both tasks.

Significance. If the reported performance transfers to real artist workflows, the paper makes a practical contribution: the unified RGB-channel repurposing is simple and effective, the data pipeline addresses a real scarcity of paired sketch-editing data, and the ablation uses a fair equal-activated-parameter comparison (rank-48 single LoRA vs. shared-24 with two of four rank-12 experts). The authors also disclose that their test data are pipeline-generated, which is commendable. However, the quantitative evidence currently supports in-domain performance on the authors' own synthetic distribution more strongly than it supports the general 'state-of-the-art' claim, and the redrawing evaluation uses idealized ground-truth-derived guidance lines. The significance is therefore conditional on external validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 and Supp §7.1] The SOTA claim in the abstract and Tables 1–2 rests on test data produced by the same pipeline as training. §5.2 states the instruction-guided test set is 'pipeline-generated' via §3 with Gemini-written prompts; baselines are not trained on this distribution, so the Table 1 margins (CLIP-T 0.305 vs 0.296; DINO 0.879 vs 0.809) may reflect in-domain advantage. Supp §7.1 says redrawing test guidance lines are 'derived from the ground truth,' while training deliberately uses rough/jittery strokes (§9.1); Table 2 therefore measures reconstruction from idealized guidance, not robustness to real user strokes. External validation with artist sketches, user instructions, and rough user strokes, or at least a holdout generated by a different pipeline, is required before the SOTA claim is supported.
  2. [Table 3] The contribution of T-MoE is not robustly established. Compared with '+ Style Diversity', the full model leaves CLIP-I and DINO unchanged on instruction-guided editing (0.931 and 0.879) and DINO unchanged on redrawing (0.956), with LPIPS improving only from 0.0915 to 0.0904. No variance or significance testing is reported. Since T-MoE is a core claimed contribution, multiple seeds or confidence intervals should be provided, or the claim should be softened to 'small consistent gains on some metrics.'
  3. [Tables 1–2 and Supp §8] User-study 'WR' scores are used as evidence of superiority, but no methodology is reported: number of participants, number of paired comparisons per condition, participant selection, interface, or statistical significance. Without these details, the user-preference evidence cannot be evaluated. Please provide the protocol, or treat the WR values as pilot evidence rather than a rigorous user study.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2, §5.4, Fig. 3] Typos: 'Semantic Consisteny' (§5.2), 'the T-MoE)' (§5.4), and 'VA E'/'V AE' in the Fig. 3 caption.
  2. [Eq. (1)–(2)] Clarify whether the α/r scaling applies to SharedLoRA as well as ExpertLoRA, and how r is defined when SharedLoRA has rank 24 and experts have rank 12.
  3. [§4.2] The router input z is described as concatenating text and visual features, but the exact features and where they are extracted are not specified; this affects reproducibility.
  4. [§5.2] The 'manual review' step for test samples is not quantified (number of annotators, criteria, agreement).
  5. [General] No code, data, attribute vocabulary, or detailed prompt lists are released; releasing these would substantially strengthen reproducibility and adoption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation-circularity; disclosed self-referential test distribution is a generalization concern, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

SketchAssist's contributions are an empirical system: a synthetic data-generation pipeline, a fine-tuned FLUX.1-Kontext model with RGB-channel repurposing and T-MoE, and evaluations on a 200-sample test set. Walking the claimed derivation chain, I find no step where a prediction is equivalent by construction to its inputs, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation: cited works (FLUX.1-Kontext, ControlNet, ICEdit, SketchEdit, etc.) are external and no author overlap is evident. The strongest candidate for concern is the evaluation protocol. Section 5.2 states 'As all test data are pipeline-generated, we have access to accurate target images and captions for the instruction-guided task,' and Supplementary Section 7.1 notes that redrawing guidance lines are 'derived from the ground truth.' These passages are self-referential in the sense that the test distribution overlaps the training distribution and the redrawing input is idealized; this is a legitimate external-validity limitation that could overstate transfer to real artist sketches. However, it is not derivation circularity: at inference the model does not receive the target image, the fitted parameters are not adjusted on the test set, and the reported comparisons are against fixed baselines on the same test set. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs, and no self-citation is invoked to force the central claim. Therefore the paper has no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

This is an engineering system paper; its axioms are mostly domain assumptions about sketch data and the trustworthiness of synthetic data as both training signal and evaluation signal. The one ad-hoc-to-paper premise is that the synthetic test distribution represents real sketch-editing usage (§5.2). The free parameters are hand-chosen hyperparameters and undisclosed data-filtering thresholds that shape the underlying training data and therefore any downstream metric.

free parameters (5)
  • LoRA rank configuration (shared 24, expert 12 × 4, top-2) = 48 activated ranks
    Supp §10; the ablation equalizes activated parameters against a rank-48 single LoRA and is fair, but the ranks and top-K are hand-chosen with no sweep.
  • Number of operations per sampled edit pair (1–5)
    Supp §10 — hand-set to simulate simple and complex edits; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Data filtering thresholds (HumanArt + CLIP similarity + Qwen2-VL) = not reported
    Supp §9.1 — pairs are discarded on thresholds that are never given numerically; these thresholds determine dataset quality and hence final metrics.
  • Guidance-line degradation prompts ('bad quality', 'sketch')
    Supp §9.1 — intentional domain gap between rough guidance and precise geometry; the degree of roughness is a hand choice controlling redrawing difficulty.
  • Test set size (200 per task) = 200
    Sec 5.2 — hand-selected; small for stable metric comparisons; expanded to 400 only in the redrawing ablation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Sketch inputs are predominantly monochrome, so encoding source sketch in R, mask in G, guidance in B loses no information
    Sec 4.1 builds the entire unified input on this; colored line art or color-coded edits break the encoding.
  • domain assumption ControlNet conditioning on the previous sketch keeps pose and composition fixed across attribute-addition steps
    Sec 3.2.1: 'changes between I(t−1) and I(t) are dominated by a_t' — all pair labels inherit this; the filter in supp §9.1 partially guards it.
  • domain assumption The attribute-removal model trained on synthetic line art transfers to unseen real styles
    Sec 3.2.3 / supp §9.1 asserts generalization via FLUX's in-context design; no quantitative check on real styles is provided.
  • domain assumption VIEScore MLLM judges (Gemini-2.0-Flash, Qwen3-VL-30B) rank editing quality like humans
    Sec 5.2; system prompts are given in supp Table 5, but judge agreement with human ratings is not measured.
  • ad hoc to paper Pipeline-generated test sketches with Gemini instructions are representative of real artist use
    Sec 5.2 'As all test data are pipeline-generated...' — the load-bearing premise for the SOTA claim.
invented entities (1)
  • Task-guided Mixture-of-Experts (T-MoE) no independent evidence
    purpose: Sparse MoE inside LoRA layers routing between instruction-edit and redrawing behavior
    Sec 4.2; supported only by the paper's own ablation table and qualitative figures, with no external reproduction or downstream deployment.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15279 in / 19197 out tokens · 148351 ms · 2026-08-03T16:15:05.590797+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Sketch editing requires jointly handling high-level semantic changes and precise local redrawing, a combination that is particularly challenging for sparse, style-sensitive line art. Unlike natural images, sketches rely on minimal visual cues, making it difficult for existing methods to reconcile global semantic modifications with fine-grained structural control while preserving overall coherence. We present SketchAssist, an interactive sketch assistant that unifies instruction-guided editing with line-guided region redrawing, enabling efficient and controllable sketch manipulation while preserving overall composition. To support this task, we introduce a controllable data generation pipeline that constructs structured edit sequences with precise attribute variations and maintains structural alignment across multi-step modifications, while expanding stylistic diversity via style-preserving transformations. Building on this data, SketchAssist adopts a unified framework based on DiT, using a multi-channel input representation to encode sketches, masks, and guidance signals within a single interface. To further handle different editing modes, we integrate a Task-guided Mixture-of-Experts (T-MoE) into LoRA layers, enabling adaptive control over semantic and structural guidance. Extensive experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art performance on both tasks, achieving strong instruction adherence and improved structural and style consistency compared to recent methods. Together, our method provide a practical and controllable solution for sketch editing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14140 by Cong Xie, Han Zou, Jie Huang, Ruiqi Yu, Yan Zhang, Zhenpeng Zhan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A sketch generation workflow using the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of our data generation pipeline. The pipeline comprises three main parts: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An overview of our proposed unified framework for sketch editing. The model is capable of performing two complementary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons of Instruction-guided Sketch Editing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons of Line-guided Region Redrawing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Failures of generated edit pairs using Prompt-to-Prompt [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparisons between our method and an object-detection-based inpainting approach (SDXL-Inpainting and FLUX.1- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparisons of instruction-based editing. The text beneath each example corresponds to the editing instruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparisons of instruction-based editing. The text beneath each example corresponds to the editing instruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative comparisons of Line-guided Redrawing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images

    Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 18208–18218, 2022. 3

    2022

  2. [2]

    Sketchinr: A first look into sketches as implicit neural representations

    Hmrishav Bandyopadhyay, Ayan Kumar Bhunia, Pinaki Nath Chowdhury, Aneeshan Sain, Tao Xiang, Timothy Hospedales, and Yi-Zhe Song. Sketchinr: A first look into sketches as implicit neural representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12565–12574,

  3. [3]

    Text2live: Text-driven layered image and video editing

    Omer Bar-Tal, Dolev Ofri-Amar, Rafail Fridman, Yoni Kas- ten, and Tali Dekel. Text2live: Text-driven layered image and video editing. InEuropean conference on computer vi- sion, pages 707–723. Springer, 2022. 3

    2022

  4. [4]

    Stephen Batifol, Andreas Blattmann, Frederic Boesel, Sak- sham Consul, Cyril Diagne, Tim Dockhorn, Jack English, Zion English, Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, et al. Flux. 1 kontext: Flow matching for in-context image generation and editing in latent space.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2506,

  5. [5]

    Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis

    Andrew Brock, Jeff Donahue, and Karen Simonyan. Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.11096, 2018. 3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 3, 1

    2023

  7. [7]

    Training-free regional prompting for diffusion transformers

    Anthony Chen, Jianjin Xu, Wenzhao Zheng, Gaole Dai, Yida Wang, Renrui Zhang, Haofan Wang, and Shanghang Zhang. Training-free regional prompting for diffusion transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02395, 2024. 3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    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 Ed- ward Raff. Vqgan-clip: Open domain image generation and editing with natural language guidance. InEuropean con- ference on computer vision, pages 88–105. Springer, 2022. 3

    2022

  9. [9]

    Taming transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Robin Rombach, and Bjorn Ommer. Taming transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12873–12883, 2021. 3

    2021

  10. [10]

    Generative adversarial nets.Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    Ian J Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets.Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 3

    2014

  11. [11]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age 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 im- age editing with cross attention control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022. 3, 1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 3

    2020

  13. [13]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022. 5

    2022

  14. [14]

    Adaptive mixtures of local experts.Neu- ral computation, 3(1):79–87, 1991

    Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Adaptive mixtures of local experts.Neu- ral computation, 3(1):79–87, 1991. 2

    1991

  15. [15]

    Human-art: A versatile human-centric dataset bridging natural and artificial scenes

    Xuan Ju, Ailing Zeng, Jianan Wang, Qiang Xu, and Lei Zhang. Human-art: A versatile human-centric dataset bridging natural and artificial scenes. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 618–629, 2023. 3, 4

    2023

  16. [16]

    Brushnet: A plug-and-play image inpainting model with decomposed dual-branch diffusion

    Xuan Ju, Xian Liu, Xintao Wang, Yuxuan Bian, Ying Shan, and Qiang Xu. Brushnet: A plug-and-play image inpainting model with decomposed dual-branch diffusion. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 150–168. Springer,

  17. [17]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 4401–4410, 2019. 3

    2019

  18. [18]

    Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8110–8119, 2020

    2020

  19. [19]

    Alias-free generative adversarial networks.Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 34:852–863, 2021

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Samuli Laine, Erik H ¨ark¨onen, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Alias-free generative adversarial networks.Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 34:852–863, 2021. 3

    2021

  20. [20]

    Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6007–6017, 2023. 3

    2023

  21. [21]

    Auto-encoding varia- tional bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding varia- tional bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    Viescore: Towards explainable metrics for conditional image synthesis evaluation

    Max Ku, Dongfu Jiang, Cong Wei, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen. Viescore: Towards explainable metrics for conditional image synthesis evaluation. InProceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12268–12290, 2024. 7, 1

    2024

  23. [23]

    Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection

    Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Qing Jiang, Chunyuan Li, Jianwei Yang, Hang Su, et al. Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. InEuro- pean conference on computer vision, pages 38–55. Springer,

  24. [24]

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

    Shiyu Liu, Yucheng Han, Peng Xing, Fukun Yin, Rui Wang, Wei Cheng, Jiaqi Liao, Yingming Wang, Honghao Fu, Chun- rui Han, et al. Step1x-edit: A practical framework for general image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17761, 2025. 7, 4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Magicquill: An intelligent interactive image editing system

    Zichen Liu, Yue Yu, Hao Ouyang, Qiuyu Wang, Ka Leong Cheng, Wen Wang, Zhiheng Liu, Qifeng Chen, and Yujun Shen. Magicquill: An intelligent interactive image editing system. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 13072–13082, 2025. 3, 7, 1, 4

    2025

  26. [26]

    Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Andreas Lugmayr, Martin Danelljan, Andres Romero, Fisher Yu, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11461–11471, 2022. 3

    2022

  27. [27]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision, pages 4195–4205,

  29. [29]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 8748–8763. PmLR, 2021. 3, 6

    2021

  31. [31]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714, 2024

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, Ronghang Hu, Chaitanya Ryali, Tengyu Ma, Haitham Khedr, Roman R¨adle, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, et al. Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714, 2024. 1, 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 3

    2022

  33. [33]

    Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and gen- eration 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 gen- eration tasks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8871–8879, 2024. 3

    2024

  34. [34]

    Ominicontrol: Minimal and univer- sal control for diffusion transformer

    Zhenxiong Tan, Songhua Liu, Xingyi Yang, Qiaochu Xue, and Xinchao Wang. Ominicontrol: Minimal and univer- sal control for diffusion transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 14940–14950, 2025. 5

    2025

  35. [35]

    Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, 2024

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Yang Fan, Kai Dang, Mengfei Du, Xuancheng Ren, Rui Men, Dayiheng Liu, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Jun- yang Lin. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, 2024. 4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 7, 1

    2004

  37. [37]

    Qwen-image technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02324, 2025

    Chenfei Wu, Jiahao Li, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kaiyuan Gao, Kun Yan, Sheng-ming Yin, Shuai Bai, Xiao Xu, Yilei Chen, et al. Qwen-image technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02324, 2025. 3, 7, 4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Anyedit: Mastering unified high-quality image editing for any idea

    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. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 26125–26135, 2025. 1, 2

    2025

  39. [39]

    Sketchedit: Mask- free local image manipulation with partial sketches

    Yu Zeng, Zhe Lin, and Vishal M Patel. Sketchedit: Mask- free local image manipulation with partial sketches. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5951–5961, 2022. 3, 7, 1, 4

    2022

  40. [40]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 3836–3847, 2023. 3, 4

    2023

  41. [41]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 7, 1

    2018

  42. [42]

    Enabling instructional image editing with in-context genera- tion in large scale diffusion transformer

    Zechuan Zhang, Ji Xie, Yu Lu, Zongxin Yang, and Yi Yang. Enabling instructional image editing with in-context genera- tion in large scale diffusion transformer. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems. 3, 7

  43. [43]

    In-context edit: Enabling instructional image editing with in- context generation in large scale diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20690, 2025

    Zechuan Zhang, Ji Xie, Yu Lu, Zongxin Yang, and Yi Yang. In-context edit: Enabling instructional image editing with in- context generation in large scale diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20690, 2025. 4 SketchAssist: A Practical Assistant for Semantic Edits and Precise Local Redrawing Supplementary Material Model PSNR↑PSNR-M↑SSIM↑SSIM-M↑ Ske...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Detailed Evaluation Protocol In this section, we provide further details on the evaluation settings, including the specific prompt configurations used for MLLM-based automated evaluation (VIEScore [22]), supplementary pixel-wise metrics, and the rationale behind the evaluation scope for different experimental tables. 7.1. Supplementary Pixel-wise Evaluati...

  45. [45]

    We compared the edit- ing pairs produced by our pipeline against those gener- ated by standard paradigms

    Comparison of Data Generation Methods To justify the necessity of our proposed data genera- tion pipeline—which integrates generation with strict post- filtering—we conducted a study to evaluate the quality of the constructed training pairs. We compared the edit- ing pairs produced by our pipeline against those gener- ated by standard paradigms. To ensure...

  46. [46]

    bad quality

    More Details of Data Generation 9.1. Instruction-guided Editing Data Attribute Addition Sequence:We construct10,000dis- tinct attribute addition sequences usingStable Diffusion XL (SDXL)models. Each sequence begins with an initial sketch Input Output hoodie - > jacket Input Output Remove jacket Remove face Input Output skirt - > panties Add grin Add tiara...

  47. [47]

    Here, the number1–5refers to the total number of operations included in the sampled edit pair,rather than the actual distance between two samples in a sequence

    Training Configuration Cross-Sequence SamplingDuring training, we employ a cross-sequence sampling strategy, in which edit pairs are formed by randomly selecting between1–5operations from a predefined set of three operation types (e.g.,add,remove, replace). Here, the number1–5refers to the total number of operations included in the sampled edit pair,rathe...

  48. [48]

    8 and Fig

    More Qualitative Comparison We provide qualitative comparisons of instruction-guided editing task with ICEdit [43], Qwen-Image-Edit [37], FLUX.1 Kontext [4], and Step1X-Edit [24] in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. In these experiments, we deliberately adopt com- plex and multi-faceted editing instructions, requiring simul- taneous modifications to multiple attributes,...