pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.14842 · v1 · pith:FLGVHYREnew · submitted 2026-05-14 · 💻 cs.CV

Editor's Choice: Evaluating Abstract Intent in Image Editing through Atomic Entity Analysis

Mor Ventura , Roy Hirsch , Yonatan Bitton , Regev Cohen , Roi Reichart This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 21:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords abstract image editingEntity-RubricsAbstractEdit benchmarkintent preservationmodel evaluationimage editingmultimodal models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Abstract image editing benchmarks show models struggle to balance intent and preservation on non-literal instructions.

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

The paper formalizes abstract image editing as edits driven by concepts like mood rather than literal changes and introduces Entity-Rubrics to break such edits into entity-level assessments that correlate with human judgment. It also releases the AbstractEdit benchmark covering diverse real-world scenes. Evaluation of 11 leading models on this benchmark shows they commonly under-edit or over-edit instead of following the abstract intent while preserving the rest of the image. The work identifies advanced LLM text encoders and iterative thinking as routes to improvement and suggests the entity-based approach can extend to reward modeling and failure diagnosis.

Core claim

Standard architectures struggle to balance intent and preservation in abstract image editing, commonly defaulting to under-editing or over-editing, as revealed by applying the Entity-Rubrics framework to the AbstractEdit benchmark.

What carries the argument

Entity-Rubrics, a framework that decomposes abstract edits into separate entity-level assessments to measure how well models follow the instruction.

If this is right

  • Meaningful progress requires advanced LLM text encoders combined with iterative thinking.
  • The entity-based paradigm can be reused as a reward model for training.
  • Models can be guided to interpret abstract communication more reliably.
  • The same breakdown can surface specific failure modes inside test-time critique loops.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same entity decomposition could be used at training time rather than only at evaluation time.
  • Taxonomies of abstract edits developed here may transfer to other multimodal generation tasks.
  • Iterative refinement loops informed by entity rubrics could be tested on future model releases.

Load-bearing premise

Entity-level rubrics scores will match human judgments on whether an abstract edit was carried out correctly.

What would settle it

Collecting new human ratings on the AbstractEdit set and finding low correlation with the Entity-Rubrics scores would falsify the framework's validity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14842 by Mor Ventura, Regev Cohen, Roi Reichart, Roy Hirsch, Yonatan Bitton.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evaluating Abstract Image Editing. Given a context image and an abstract instruction from our ABSTRACTEDIT test set, our ENTITY-RUBRICS framework assesses the edited image by decomposing the scene at a granular level, yielding a per-edit rank that determines the final instruction-following score. As shown, some entity edits lead to better prompt alignment (e.g., the man’s expression), while others introduc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Taxonomy of Image Editing Intent. We formalize intent across two orthogonal axes: Identification (“what to edit”) and Specificity (“how to edit”). Intent is categorized based on the mapping between these axes: Explicit and Implicit editing provide a one-to-one mapping through high consensus on both axes, whereas abstract editing introduces a one-to-many relationship. example. To support model development, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of the three-stage VLM-based ENTITY-RUBRICS evaluation framework. (A) Entity Detection identifies relevant entities. (B) Entity Ranking assigns an expected transformation to each entity (Change, Optional, Preserve) and measures its execution alignment in the edited image. (C) Final Scoring aggregates these into a global rank and rationale. Results are visualized directly on-image via a red (incorr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The ABSTRACTEDIT Automatic Curation Pipeline. (A) Sourcing: Context images (Azure) from OpenImages are compiled alongside manual category examples (Purple) and diverse personas (Blue). (B) Instruction Generation: After filtering the images for category relevancy, an LLM, prompted by few-shot examples and a random persona, generates paired abstract and explicit instructions (Beige). (C) Editing: Both instru… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative example edited by different models, representative from each model-category. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Failure Rate per Entity Edit Action. Normalized by the number of occurrences of each edit type across all models. Action-specific analysis ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Diversity Analysis. Vendi score distributions for abstract vs. explicit instruc￾tions (right) and qualitative examples (left). Abstractness Unlocks Diversity. To examine the link between abstraction and creativity, we analyze how prompt types affect the diversity of the edited images. Using leading open-source (FLUX.2) and closed-source (Gemini 3.1) models, we generate 2,000 images by processing 100 random… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Context-Dependent eDoF. The same instruction, "Adjust for a younger audience”, requires varying levels of generative guesswork depending on the context image Ic. In the High eDoF case (top), the model must navigate a broad probability space to resolve both Identification (what to change) and Specificity (how to change it). In the Low eDoF case (bottom), the visual environment provides explicit constraints,… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Expanded Cases of Editing Intent. lower interpretive variance and naturally align with lower eDoF scores. Edits involving complex social or emotional shifts, such as making a scene appear formal, introduce vastly higher interpretive freedom, placing them at the upper limit of the scale. Furthermore, this level of abstractness is strictly independent of spatial resolution. Instructions can manifest as high… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Composition and Evaluation of the ABSTRACTEDIT Benchmark. The composition of the ABSTRACTEDIT benchmark is illustrated across four primary domains and 12 subcategories in the middle panel. Surrounding this distribution are representative samples from each domain, featuring context images paired with candidate edits produced by various models. Each output is overlaid with our ENTITY-RUBRICS automatic granu… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: ABSTRACTEDIT distribution of categories. foundational backbone of abstract human instruction. The Social domain follows closely, including complex human-centric categories such as Culture (47), Socio-Economic (44), and Role (37). The strong emphasis on this domain challenges the model’s capacity to translate abstract sociological concepts into concrete visual markers (e.g., clothing, environment), a task … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Explicit vs Abstract Prompt Length. Personas. To ensure instruction diversity, we employ a high-dimensional persona sampling strategy that simulates a wide array of human backgrounds and behaviors (see the prompt box). By sampling features such as age, country, profession, and personality as independent variables, the model generates instructions spanning different cultural contexts and linguistic styles.… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distribution of Common Entities in ABSTRACTEDIT Context Images (OpenImages). 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Annotation guideline example for Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Human Evaluation Questionnaire in Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Performance Comparison of Image Editing Models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: ∆CLIP vs ENTITY-RUBRICS Evaluation Qualitative Comparison (Samples from the ABSTRACTEDIT test set. Logical Inconsistency (top): While the prompt asked for the heating to be "broken," FLUX generated a literal heating generator and snow that didn’t exist in the original office, whereas the Gemini 2.5 model correctly inferred that a broken heater means people would wear coats and gloves. CLIP favors the lite… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: A qualitative example demonstrating over-editing by HiDream-E1 when given an explicit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Qualitative Examples across Closed Source models of cases where they insert more textual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: presents a heatmap of ENTITY-RUBRICS scores decomposed by domain. The results highlight that integrating a "thinking" mode yields notable performance improvements (e.g., from Bagel to Bagel-Think, and Step1X to Step1X-Think). For Step1X, the most substantial gains are observed in the logical and social domains, suggesting that reasoning capabilities help the model decompose complex abstract intents into a… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Heatmap illustrating the failure rate across different edit actions (x-axis) for each model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: A qualitative comparison of Bagel vs. Bagel-Think. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: A qualitative comparison of Step1X vs. Step1X-Think-Reflect. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: A qualitative comparison of all evaluated models on a sample from the logical domain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: A qualitative comparison of all evaluated models on a sample from the social domain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: A qualitative comparison of all evaluated models on a sample from the emotional domain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: A qualitative comparison of all evaluated models on a sample from the physical domain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: A qualitative comparison of all evaluated models on a sample from the social domain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_29.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Humans naturally communicate through abstract concepts like "mood". However, current image editing benchmarks focus primarily on explicit, literal commands, leaving abstract instructions largely underexplored. In this work, we first formalize the definition and taxonomy of abstract image editing. To measure instruction-following in this challenging domain, we introduce Entity-Rubrics, a framework that breaks down abstract edits into individual, entity-level assessments and achieves strong correlation with human judgment. Alongside this framework, we contribute AbstractEdit, the first benchmark dedicated to abstract image editing across diverse real-world scenes. Evaluating 11 leading models on this dataset reveals a fundamental challenge: standard architectures struggle to balance intent and preservation, commonly defaulting to under-editing or over-editing. Our analysis demonstrates that driving meaningful improvements relies heavily on integrating advanced LLM text encoders and iterative thinking. Looking forward, our entity-based paradigm can generalize beyond assessment to serve as a reward model, enable models to correctly interpret abstract communication, or highlight specific failures in test-time critique loops. Ultimately, we hope this work serves as a stepping stone toward seamless multimodal interaction, closing the gap between rigid machine execution and the natural, open-ended way humans communicate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper formalizes a definition and taxonomy of abstract image editing, introduces the Entity-Rubrics framework that decomposes abstract edits into entity-level assessments and is claimed to achieve strong correlation with human judgment, contributes the AbstractEdit benchmark for diverse real-world scenes, and evaluates 11 leading models. It concludes that standard architectures struggle to balance intent and preservation (defaulting to under- or over-editing), that improvements depend on advanced LLM text encoders and iterative thinking, and that the entity-based paradigm can generalize to reward models or test-time critique.

Significance. If the Entity-Rubrics correlation and benchmark validity hold, the work addresses an underexplored gap between literal and abstract instruction following in image editing. A reliable entity-level scoring method could support more natural multimodal interaction and provide targeted diagnostics for model failures, with potential extension to training signals.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that Entity-Rubrics 'achieves strong correlation with human judgment' supplies no quantitative support (Pearson/Spearman coefficient, rater count, inter-rater agreement, or per-edit-type breakdown). This is load-bearing because the AbstractEdit benchmark's reliability and the subsequent model-performance conclusions rest on it.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the evaluation of 11 models and the claim that they 'commonly default to under-editing or over-editing' provides no protocol details, quantitative metrics, or dataset statistics. Without these, the central empirical finding cannot be assessed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the taxonomy of abstract edits is referenced but not summarized; a brief enumeration of categories would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and will revise the abstract to include the requested quantitative details and protocol information.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that Entity-Rubrics 'achieves strong correlation with human judgment' supplies no quantitative support (Pearson/Spearman coefficient, rater count, inter-rater agreement, or per-edit-type breakdown). This is load-bearing because the AbstractEdit benchmark's reliability and the subsequent model-performance conclusions rest on it.

    Authors: We agree the abstract should be self-contained on this point. The full manuscript provides the quantitative support in Section 4 (Entity-Rubrics Evaluation), including Pearson/Spearman coefficients, rater count, inter-rater agreement, and per-edit-type breakdowns. We will revise the abstract to incorporate these key figures. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the evaluation of 11 models and the claim that they 'commonly default to under-editing or over-editing' provides no protocol details, quantitative metrics, or dataset statistics. Without these, the central empirical finding cannot be assessed.

    Authors: The evaluation protocol for the 11 models, quantitative metrics (entity-level intent and preservation scores used to identify under/over-editing), and AbstractEdit dataset statistics are detailed in Sections 5 and 6. We will update the abstract with a concise summary of the protocol, metrics, and key statistics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: new benchmark and framework introduced without self-referential derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper introduces Entity-Rubrics and AbstractEdit as new contributions for evaluating abstract image edits. The abstract and provided text contain no equations, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, no self-citation chains justifying uniqueness theorems, and no ansatzes smuggled via prior work. The reported correlation with human judgment is presented as an empirical outcome of the new framework rather than defined in terms of itself or prior fitted values. The model evaluation results follow directly from applying the benchmark, with no reduction to inputs by construction. This is a standard empirical benchmark paper with independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; contributions consist of a new taxonomy, evaluation framework, and benchmark dataset.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5746 in / 1082 out tokens · 40262 ms · 2026-06-30T21:38:37.728212+00:00 · methodology

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

78 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

  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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 18208–18218, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Improving image generation with better captions

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al. Improving image generation with better captions. Computer Science. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf, 2(3):8, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Make it count: Text-to-image generation with an accurate number of objects

    Lital Binyamin, Yoad Tewel, Hilit Segev, Eran Hirsch, Royi Rassin, and Gal Chechik. Make it count: Text-to-image generation with an accurate number of objects. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 13242–13251, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    FLUX.2: Analyzing and enhancing the latent space of FLUX – representation comparison, 2025

    Black Forest Labs. FLUX.2: Analyzing and enhancing the latent space of FLUX – representation comparison, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference

    Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. InProceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 632–642, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Coco-stuff: Thing and stuff classes in context

    Holger Caesar, Jasper Uijlings, and Vittorio Ferrari. Coco-stuff: Thing and stuff classes in context. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1209–1218, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    HiDream-I1: A High-Efficient Image Generative Foundation Model with Sparse Diffusion Transformer

    Qi Cai, Jingwen Chen, Yang Chen, Yehao Li, Fuchen Long, Yingwei Pan, Zhaofan Qiu, Yiheng Zhang, Fengbin Gao, Peihan Xu, et al. Hidream-i1: A high-efficient image generative foundation model with sparse diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22705, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Factool: Factuality detection in generative ai–a tool augmented framework for multi-task and multi-domain scenarios.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13528, 2023

    I Chern, Steffi Chern, Shiqi Chen, Weizhe Yuan, Kehua Feng, Chunting Zhou, Junxian He, Gra- ham Neubig, Pengfei Liu, et al. Factool: Factuality detection in generative ai–a tool augmented framework for multi-task and multi-domain scenarios.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13528, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Grounding in communication

    Herbert H Clark and Susan E Brennan. Grounding in communication. 1991

    1991

  11. [11]

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities

    Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261, 2025. 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Be decisive: Noise-induced layouts for multi-subject generation

    Omer Dahary, Yehonathan Cohen, Or Patashnik, Kfir Aberman, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Be decisive: Noise-induced layouts for multi-subject generation. InProceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference Conference Papers, pages 1–12, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Emerging Properties in Unified Multimodal Pretraining

    Chaorui Deng, Deyao Zhu, Kunchang Li, Chenhui Gou, Feng Li, Zeyu Wang, Shu Zhong, Weihao Yu, Xiaonan Nie, Ziang Song, et al. Emerging properties in unified multimodal pretraining.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14683, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Got: Unleashing reasoning capability of multimodal large language model for visual generation and editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10639, 2025

    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

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    The vendi score: A diversity evaluation metric for machine learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02410, 2022

    Dan Friedman and Adji Bousso Dieng. The vendi score: A diversity evaluation metric for machine learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02410, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Guid- ing instruction-based image editing via multimodal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17102, 2023

    Tsu-Jui Fu, Wenze Hu, Xianzhi Du, William Yang Wang, Yinfei Yang, and Zhe Gan. Guid- ing instruction-based image editing via multimodal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17102, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    MIT press, 2004

    Peter Gardenfors.Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. MIT press, 2004

    2004

  18. [18]

    Trueteacher: Learning factual consistency evaluation with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11171, 2023

    Zorik Gekhman, Jonathan Herzig, Roee Aharoni, Chen Elkind, and Idan Szpektor. Trueteacher: Learning factual consistency evaluation with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11171, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Image generation with Gemini | Gemini API | Google AI for developers

    Google DeepMind. Image generation with Gemini | Gemini API | Google AI for developers. Online Documentation, 2026. Accessed: April 6, 2026

    2026

  20. [20]

    Gemini API documentation: Image generation and editing

    Google Developers. Gemini API documentation: Image generation and editing. https: //ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/image-generation#gemini-image-editing ,

  21. [21]

    Accessed: April 18, 2026

    2026

  22. [22]

    Logic and conversation

    Herbert P Grice. Logic and conversation. InSpeech acts, pages 41–58. Brill, 1975

    1975

  23. [23]

    Reasoning to Edit: Hypothetical Instruction-Based Image Editing with Visual Reasoning

    Qingdong He, Xueqin Chen, Chaoyi Wang, Yanjie Pan, Xiaobin Hu, Zhenye Gan, Yabiao Wang, Chengjie Wang, Xiangtai Li, and Jiangning Zhang. Reasoning to edit: Hypothetical instruction-based image editing with visual reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01908, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    True: Re- evaluating factual consistency evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04991, 2022

    Or Honovich, Roee Aharoni, Jonathan Herzig, Hagai Taitelbaum, Doron Kukliansy, Vered Cohen, Thomas Scialom, Idan Szpektor, Avinatan Hassidim, and Yossi Matias. True: Re- evaluating factual consistency evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04991, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Tifa: Accurate and interpretable text-to-image faithfulness evaluation with question answering

    Yushi Hu, Benlin Liu, Jungo Kasai, Yizhong Wang, Mari Ostendorf, Ranjay Krishna, and Noah A Smith. Tifa: Accurate and interpretable text-to-image faithfulness evaluation with question answering. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 20406–20417, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    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 on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8362–8371, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Specify and edit: Overcoming ambiguity in text-based image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20232, 2024

    Ekaterina Iakovleva, Fabio Pizzati, Philip Torr, and Stéphane Lathuilière. Specify and edit: Overcoming ambiguity in text-based image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20232, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Visual style prompting with swapping self-attention.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12974, 2024

    Jaeseok Jeong, Junho Kim, Yunjey Choi, Gayoung Lee, and Youngjung Uh. Visual style prompting with swapping self-attention.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12974, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Instruction-based image editing with planning, reasoning, and generation

    Liya Ji, Chenyang Qi, and Qifeng Chen. Instruction-based image editing with planning, reasoning, and generation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 17506–17515, 2025. 11

    2025

  30. [30]

    Compbench: Benchmarking complex instruction-guided image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12200, 2025

    Bohan Jia, Wenxuan Huang, Yuntian Tang, Junbo Qiao, Jincheng Liao, Shaosheng Cao, Fei Zhao, Zhaopeng Feng, Zhouhong Gu, Zhenfei Yin, et al. Compbench: Benchmarking complex instruction-guided image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12200, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Iterative multi-granular image editing using diffusion models

    KJ Joseph, Prateksha Udhayanan, Tripti Shukla, Aishwarya Agarwal, Srikrishna Karanam, Koustava Goswami, and Balaji Vasan Srinivasan. Iterative multi-granular image editing using diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 8107–8116, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Routledge, 2020

    Gunther Kress and Theo Van Leeuwen.Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Routledge, 2020

    2020

  33. [33]

    Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization

    Wojciech Kryscinski, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization. In Bonnie Webber, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu, editors,Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9332–9346, Online, November 2020. Association for Co...

    2020

  34. [34]

    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 Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12268–12290, 2024

    2024

  35. [35]

    Alina Kuznetsova, Hassan Rom, Neil Alldrin, Jasper Uijlings, Ivan Krasin, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Shahab Kamali, Stefan Popov, Matteo Malloci, Alexander Kolesnikov, et al. The open images dataset v4: Unified image classification, object detection, and visual relationship detection at scale.International journal of computer vision, 128(7):1956–1981, 2020

    1956

  36. [36]

    Black Forest Labs, Stephen Batifol, Andreas Blattmann, Frederic Boesel, Saksham Consul, Cyril Diagne, Tim Dockhorn, Jack English, Zion English, Patrick Esser, et al. Flux. 1 kontext: Flow matching for in-context image generation and editing in latent space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15742, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Editthinker: Unlocking iterative reasoning for any image editor

    Hongyu Li, Manyuan Zhang, Dian Zheng, Ziyu Guo, Yimeng Jia, Kaituo Feng, Hao Yu, Yexin Liu, Yan Feng, Peng Pei, et al. Editthinker: Unlocking iterative reasoning for any image editor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.05965, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Mind the gap: Understanding the modality gap in multi-modal contrastive representation learning

    Victor Weixin Liang, Yuhui Zhang, Yongchan Kwon, Serena Yeung, and James Y Zou. Mind the gap: Understanding the modality gap in multi-modal contrastive representation learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:17612–17625, 2022

    2022

  39. [39]

    Evaluating text-to-visual generation with image-to-text generation

    Zhiqiu Lin, Deepak Pathak, Baiqi Li, Jiayao Li, Xide Xia, Graham Neubig, Pengchuan Zhang, and Deva Ramanan. Evaluating text-to-visual generation with image-to-text generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 366–384. Springer, 2024

    2024

  40. [40]

    Step1X-Edit: A Practical Framework for General Image Editing

    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 preprint arXiv:2504.17761, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Design guidelines for prompt engineering text-to-image generative models

    Vivian Liu and Lydia B Chilton. Design guidelines for prompt engineering text-to-image generative models. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–23, 2022

    2022

  42. [42]

    I2ebench: A comprehensive benchmark for instruction-based image editing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:41494–41516, 2024

    Yiwei Ma, Jiayi Ji, Ke Ye, Weihuang Lin, Zhibin Wang, Yonghan Zheng, Qiang Zhou, Xiaoshuai Sun, and Rongrong Ji. I2ebench: A comprehensive benchmark for instruction-based image editing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:41494–41516, 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization

    Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. InProceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 1906–1919, 2020. 12

    1906

  44. [44]

    Factscore: Fine-grained atomic evaluation of factual precision in long form text generation

    Sewon Min, Kalpesh Krishna, Xinxi Lyu, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Pang Koh, Mohit Iyyer, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Factscore: Fine-grained atomic evaluation of factual precision in long form text generation. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 12076–12100, 2023

    2023

  45. [45]

    Some observations on mental models

    Donald A Norman. Some observations on mental models. InMental models, pages 7–14. Psychology Press, 2014

    2014

  46. [46]

    GPT-Image-1.5 Model Documentation

    OpenAI.Image generation, December 2025. GPT-Image-1.5 Model Documentation

    2025

  47. [47]

    A taxonomy of prompt modifiers for text-to-image generation.Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(15):3763–3776, 2024

    Jonas Oppenlaender. A taxonomy of prompt modifiers for text-to-image generation.Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(15):3763–3776, 2024

    2024

  48. [48]

    Picabench: How far are we from physically realistic image editing?arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17681, 2025

    Yuandong Pu, Le Zhuo, Songhao Han, Jinbo Xing, Kaiwen Zhu, Shuo Cao, Bin Fu, Si Liu, Hongsheng Li, Yu Qiao, et al. Picabench: How far are we from physically realistic image editing?arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17681, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Pico-banana-400k: A large-scale dataset for text-guided image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19808, 2025

    Yusu Qian, Eli Bocek-Rivele, Liangchen Song, Jialing Tong, Yinfei Yang, Jiasen Lu, Wenze Hu, and Zhe Gan. Pico-banana-400k: A large-scale dataset for text-guided image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19808, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Gie-bench: Towards grounded evaluation for text-guided image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11493, 2025

    Yusu Qian, Jiasen Lu, Tsu-Jui Fu, Xinze Wang, Chen Chen, Yinfei Yang, Wenze Hu, and Zhe Gan. Gie-bench: Towards grounded evaluation for text-guided image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11493, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    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, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 8748–8763. PmLR, 2021

    2021

  52. [52]

    Seedream 4.0: Toward Next-generation Multimodal Image Generation

    Team Seedream, Yunpeng Chen, Yu Gao, Lixue Gong, Meng Guo, Qiushan Guo, Zhiyao Guo, Xiaoxia Hou, Weilin Huang, Yixuan Huang, et al. Seedream 4.0: Toward next-generation multimodal image generation, 2025.URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2509.20427, 6

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    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 8871–8879, 2024

    2024

  54. [54]

    Oriane Siméoni, Huy V V o, Maximilian Seitzer, Federico Baldassarre, Maxime Oquab, Cijo Jose, Vasil Khalidov, Marc Szafraniec, Seungeun Yi, Michaël Ramamonjisoa, et al. Dinov3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Add- it: Training-free object insertion in images with pretrained diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07232, 2024

    Yoad Tewel, Rinon Gal, Dvir Samuel, Yuval Atzmon, Lior Wolf, and Gal Chechik. Add- it: Training-free object insertion in images with pretrained diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07232, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Winoground: Probing vision and language models for visio-linguistic compositionality

    Tristan Thrush, Ryan Jiang, Max Bartolo, Amanpreet Singh, Adina Williams, Douwe Kiela, and Candace Ross. Winoground: Probing vision and language models for visio-linguistic compositionality. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5238–5248, 2022

    2022

  57. [57]

    Omnistyle: Filtering high quality style transfer data at scale

    Ye Wang, Ruiqi Liu, Jiang Lin, Fei Liu, Zili Yi, Yilin Wang, and Rui Ma. Omnistyle: Filtering high quality style transfer data at scale. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 7847–7856, 2025

    2025

  58. [58]

    Gpt-image-edit-1.5 m: A million-scale, gpt-generated image dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21033, 2025

    Yuhan Wang, Siwei Yang, Bingchen Zhao, Letian Zhang, Qing Liu, Yuyin Zhou, and Cihang Xie. Gpt-image-edit-1.5 m: A million-scale, gpt-generated image dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21033, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Genartist: Multimodal llm as an agent for unified image generation and editing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:128374–128395, 2024

    Zhenyu Wang, Aoxue Li, Zhenguo Li, and Xihui Liu. Genartist: Multimodal llm as an agent for unified image generation and editing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:128374–128395, 2024. 13

    2024

  60. [60]

    Long-form factuality in large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:80756–80827, 2024

    Jerry Wei, Chengrun Yang, Xinying Song, Yifeng Lu, Nathan Hu, Jie Huang, Dustin Tran, Daiyi Peng, Ruibo Liu, Da Huang, et al. Long-form factuality in large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:80756–80827, 2024

    2024

  61. [61]

    Qwen-image technical report, 2025

    Chenfei Wu, Jiahao Li, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kaiyuan Gao, Kun Yan, Sheng ming Yin, Shuai Bai, Xiao Xu, Yilei Chen, Yuxiang Chen, Zecheng Tang, Zekai Zhang, Zhengyi Wang, An Yang, Bowen Yu, Chen Cheng, Dayiheng Liu, Deqing Li, Hang Zhang, Hao Meng, Hu Wei, Jingyuan Ni, Kai Chen, Kuan Cao, Liang Peng, Lin Qu, Minggang Wu, Peng Wang, Shuting Yu, Tingkun...

    2025

  62. [62]

    Qwen-Image Technical Report

    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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Complex- edit: Cot-like instruction generation for complexity-controllable image editing benchmark

    Siwei Yang, Mude Hui, Bingchen Zhao, Yuyin Zhou, Nataniel Ruiz, and Cihang Xie. Complex- edit: Cot-like instruction generation for complexity-controllable image editing benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13143, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Photoagent: Agen- tic photo editing with exploratory visual aesthetic planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.22809, 2026

    Mingde Yao, Zhiyuan You, King-Man Tam, Menglu Wang, and Tianfan Xue. Photoagent: Agen- tic photo editing with exploratory visual aesthetic planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.22809, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Beyond simple edits: X-planner for complex instruction-based image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05259, 2025

    Chun-Hsiao Yeh, Yilin Wang, Nanxuan Zhao, Richard Zhang, Yuheng Li, Yi Ma, and Kr- ishna Kumar Singh. Beyond simple edits: X-planner for complex instruction-based image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05259, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    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

    2025

  67. [67]

    Flexedit: Marrying free-shape masks to vllm for flexible image editing

    Tianshuo Yuan, Yuxiang Lin, Jue Wang, Zhi-Qi Cheng, Xiaolong Wang, Jiao GH, Wei Chen, and Xiaojiang Peng. Flexedit: Marrying free-shape masks to vllm for flexible image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12429, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Why johnny can’t prompt: how non-ai experts try (and fail) to design llm prompts

    J Diego Zamfirescu-Pereira, Richmond Y Wong, Bjoern Hartmann, and Qian Yang. Why johnny can’t prompt: how non-ai experts try (and fail) to design llm prompts. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–21, 2023

    2023

  69. [69]

    Editworld: Simulating world dynamics for instruction-following image editing

    Bohan Zeng, Ling Yang, Jiaming Liu, Minghao Xu, Yuanxing Zhang, Pengfei Wan, Wentao Zhang, and Shuicheng Yan. Editworld: Simulating world dynamics for instruction-following image editing. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 12674–12681, 2025

    2025

  70. [70]

    Re-thinking the automatic evaluation of image-text alignment in text-to-image models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08480, 2025

    Huixuan Zhang and Xiaojun Wan. Re-thinking the automatic evaluation of image-text alignment in text-to-image models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08480, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    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

  72. [72]

    make it more formal

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unrea- sonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 586–595, 2018. 14 Appendix Limitations While our dataset and evaluation framework provide a robust foundation for eval...

    2018

  73. [73]

    This defines the overall ’vibe’ of the edit

    **Create an Abstract Prompt (The "What")**: Write a new, creative, and high-level prompt inspired by the category’s theme. This defines the overall ’vibe’ of the edit. The instruction must be open to interpretation in terms of How exactly to achieve it, I.e, different people will interpret it differently

  74. [74]

    **Probablity Sampling**: Ensure that each generated response is sampled randomly from the distribution

  75. [75]

    Increase roughness to 80%,

    **Define Entity-Specific Edits (The "How")**: - **Discovery**: Actively identify more relevant entities in the image or context that were not provided in the {entities} list. Include them in your explicit list. For each relevant ‘Image Entity‘, determine its role in the edit. This is the technical process. It is precise, measurable, and leaves no room for...

  76. [76]

    This applies to the entire scene

    **Define a General Instruction**: Write instructions that describes any global changes to the image’s overall e.g., style, lighting, mood, or color palette. This applies to the entire scene

  77. [77]

    Place a [Object] 10cm to the left of [Entity] at a 30-degree angle

    **Insertion/Removal Entities**: You may suggest new entities to be inserted in the image to better align with the abstract prompt as an explicit instruction specifying the entity and its placement. These should be realistic and contextually appropriate. If no insertions/removals are needed, leave this blank. For each insertion, you MUST provide coordinate...

  78. [78]

    thinking

    and perceptual similarity to the context image (LPIPS [71]). Table 4: Architecture Summary of Baseline Image Editing Models. DiT notes Diffusion-Transformer. ✓and✗denote the presence or absence of a dedicated thinking mode, respectively. Category Model Company Text-Encoder Image Generator Size/Params Thinking Flux-Kontext [dev] Black Forest Labs CLIP + T5...

    2048