Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Early Timestep Zero-Shot Candidate Selection for Instruction-Guided Image Editing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the best seed for instruction-guided image editing can be selected from early denoising latents, before the edit is finished, matching full-inference Best-of-N while saving 41% of compute.

desk verdict A training-free early-timestep seed selector for instruction-guided editing that mostly delivers on its claims; the no-op risk is real but bounded, and the missing error bars matter less than the missing independent failure-recovery evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13490 v2 pith:72IYEXRN submitted 2025-04-18 cs.CV

Joowon Kim , Ziseok Lee , Donghyeon Cho , Sanghyun Jo , Yeonsung Jung , Kyungsu Kim , Eunho Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords instruction-guidedimageeditingseedselectionbackgroundconsistencyearly-timestepevaluationTweediedenoisingzero-shotdiffusionmodelsinference-timescaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to make instruction-guided image editing dependable by automating the trial-and-error search over random seeds. Its proposal, ELECT, evaluates many candidate seeds only up to an early denoising step (around timestep 60 to 70), scores each by a Background Inconsistency Score that estimates how much the unfinished edit would disturb the background, and then runs only the winning seed to completion. The paper reports that this early ranking matches or improves on evaluating all seeds after full inference while cutting function evaluations by 41% on average and up to 61%, and that it improves background consistency, instruction adherence, and human-aligned edit scores across five editing models on two benchmarks. The practical payoff is that users get fewer distorted backgrounds without needing a separate verifier model or additional training.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Background Inconsistency Score (BIS), a lightweight proxy for the background error that would be measured on finished images. For seed $i$ at timestep $t$, BIS is $S_{\mathrm{BIS}}(i,t) = (1-(M_t^{\mathrm{mean}})^2)\odot|\hat{z}_0^i - E(I)|$, where $\hat{z}_0^i$ is the Tweedie-formula prediction of the clean edited latent, $E(I)$ is the source image latent, and $M_t^{\mathrm{mean}}$ is the edit-relevance map averaged over candidate seeds. Squaring the mean relevance map concentrates weight on pixels consistently edited across seeds, so the score penalizes changes elsewhere without requiring a binary mask or ground truth. ELECT evaluates this score at an early stopping timestep, selects the seed with the minimum BIS, and denoises only that seed to completion.

What would settle it

Take a fixed set of images and instructions, generate at least ten seeds per sample, compute $S_{\mathrm{BIS}}(i,60)$ for each, then finish all seeds and measure background MSE with ground-truth masks. If the seed chosen by the early score is not, on average, among the best final-MSE seeds, or if the rank correlation between early BIS and final background MSE is near zero or negative, the early-stopping claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the optimal seed for instruction-guided editing can be identified before the edit is finished. ELECT denoises N candidate seeds in parallel only until an early stopping timestep, then computes a Background Inconsistency Score for each seed from the Tweedie estimate of its clean latent, and finishes only the seed with the lowest score. The paper reports that this early ranking matches or improves on Best-of-N selection using the same score after full inference, while consuming 41% fewer function evaluations on average and up to 61% fewer, and that relevance-map masks perform on par with ground-truth masks for this selection task.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the background-inconsistency ranking computed from noisy early latents at step 60 to 70 is the same ranking that would be obtained from the fully denoised images; if early latents are too noisy or the relevance mask misses the true foreground, ELECT can confidently select a seed that is not the best after full denoising.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Running a small pool of seeds and finishing only the lowest-BIS one produces fewer background artifacts than a fixed seed, with no external verifier or training.
  • A fixed compute budget buys more seeds under ELECT than under full-inference Best-of-N, and the reported MSE-versus-NFE curves place ELECT beyond the Best-of-N Pareto front.
  • The same early-BIS rule works across five instruction-guided editors, including a rectified-flow model, so it is not tied to one diffusion architecture.
  • When seed selection saturates, rephrasing the instruction through a multimodal large language model and rerunning ELECT converts roughly 40% of previously failed edits into successes, as measured by an MLLM-based evaluator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The central ranking assumption is testable: if the rank correlation between $S_{\mathrm{BIS}}(i,60)$ and final background MSE is high on a large seed set, even earlier stopping or sparser scoring timesteps may be possible; if it is low, an adaptive stopping rule becomes necessary.
  • Because BIS is computed only from latents and the source image, the same early-selection mechanism could rank other inference-time choices, such as guidance scales, negative prompts, or prompt embedding directions, not just random seeds.
  • The reported 40% failure-to-success rate from prompt selection would be sharper if compared against a control that rephrases prompts without the BIS reranking, separating the effect of prompt diversity from the effect of early seed evaluation.
  • The paper notes that pure background preservation can select over-mild edits; a two-objective version that also rewards foreground change would likely help in cases where the editing model has weak modification bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ELECT, a zero-shot, training-free seed-selection method for instruction-guided image editing. It first shows that Best-of-N selection using background MSE with ground-truth masks improves background consistency and instruction adherence over single-seed outputs, then replaces GT masks with an aggregated edit relevance map to form a Background Inconsistency Score (BIS, Eq. (6)). ELECT denoises N candidates only up to t_stop, estimates the clean latent via Tweedie's formula (Eq. (7)), selects the seed minimizing BIS, and completes inference only for that seed. The paper additionally extends the framework to prompt selection by using an MLLM to rephrase failed instructions, and it reports experiments across InstructPix2Pix, MagicBrush, InstructDiffusion, MGIE, and UltraEdit on PIE-Bench and MagicBrush, claiming an average 41% (up to 61%) reduction in NFE while matching or improving background-consistency and instruction-following metrics.

Significance. The contribution is practical and timely: a no-external-verifier, no-training criterion for picking among stochastic editing outputs is exactly the sort of tool that could improve the usability of instruction-guided editors. The paper is honest about its limitations and provides extensive ablations on t_stop, mask extraction, N, and alternative signals, and code is available. If the no-op concern is quantified and the efficiency claim is pinned down, the result would be a solid empirical contribution. The main theoretical weakness is that Eq. (6) is a relative ranking criterion whose minimizer can be a no-op edit; the paper currently addresses this only qualitatively.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (6); §C.5; §C.6; Limitations] BIS is by construction minimized by a no-op output, since any candidate with \hat z_0^i ≈ E(I) achieves SBIS ≈ 0. The paper's only defense is the qualitative claim in §C.5 of a 'strong modification bias' and the assertion in the Limitations section that over-optimization cases are 'rare', but no no-op rate is reported for any of the five models. §C.6 further shows that a foreground-MSE hybrid is needed to rescue some failure cases, which implies that pure BIS can select weak edits. Please measure and report (a) the fraction of candidates and of selected seeds that are no-op or near-no-op per model and dataset, (b) the resulting CLIPScore and VIEScore for the selected subset, and (c) if the rates are nontrivial, add a minimal-foreground-change constraint to Eq. (8).
  2. [§4.3, Eqs. (7)–(8)] The method assumes that the Tweedie estimate at t_stop = 60 preserves the ordering of final background MSE. The paper validates this only indirectly through end-task metrics in Table 1 and Fig. 5. Please report per-sample rank correlation (e.g., Spearman) between SBIS(i, t_stop) and final GT-mask background MSE across the N candidates, for several t_stop values, and show that the selected seed's final background MSE is near the true minimum. Without this, the effectiveness of early stopping as a ranking mechanism is not directly established.
  3. [Tables 1 and 4; Figs. 4–5] All numbers are point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several ELECT-versus-Best-of-N differences are within the likely run-to-run noise (e.g., Table 1, IP2P VIEScore 3.667 vs 3.570; MGIE CLIP-T 4.592 vs 4.560). Report standard deviations over multiple seed sets or bootstrapped confidence intervals, and use a paired test such as Wilcoxon for the main comparisons, so that the reader can judge whether the improvements are robust.
  4. [Fig. 4 and §5.2] The '41% average (up to 61%)' NFE reduction is computed by matching ELECT to Best-of-N at 'similar Background MSE values' within an error range of 1e-5 (Fig. 4 caption). This matching criterion is not a well-defined operating point, and the reported percentages vary with N and t_stop. Please specify the matching protocol precisely, report the full NFE-versus-MSE curves with standard errors, and clarify whether the 41% figure is averaged over models and datasets or corresponds to a single configuration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'identfying' in 'identfying the seed'; please correct it.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The '▷' symbols and the notation 'tstop' versus 't_stop' are inconsistent; please unify them and make the ensure line 'Best edited image x∗' more formal.
  3. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption refers to S_t and ΔS_t without defining them; the definition S_t = min_i SBIS(i,t) appears only later in §C.2. Please include it in the caption.
  4. [§5.1 and Fig. 8] The metric name is written inconsistently as 'VIEScore' in some places and 'VIEscore' in others; please standardize it.
  5. [§5.4] The statement that 'the signal-to-noise ratio reaches 1 after 20 steps' is given without derivation or citation; please provide the formula or a reference for the SNR schedule used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ELECT's BIS is an explicit proxy validated against external full-inference and GT-mask measures, not a fitted or self-referential rename.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a background-inconsistency score computed at an early timestep preserves the ranking of full-inference masked MSE. Eq. (6)-(8) define SBIS directly as a weighted latent difference |z_hat^i_0 - E(I)|; this is an explicitly proposed selection metric, not a quantity fitted to the evaluation labels. The early-timestep approximation uses Tweedie's formula with the same denoiser, and the authors validate it against full-inference Best-of-N by SBIS and GT-mask MSE (Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Fig. 7), which are external checks rather than tautologies. No parameter is fitted inside SBIS; t_stop and the DDC threshold tau are reported hyperparameters with empirical sensitivity analysis, not re-fit per test sample. The MLLM-based failure gate in Sec. E is inspired by VIEScore and ImagenHub rather than being identical to the reported VIEScore, and the paper additionally reports external VIEScore numbers, so the evaluation is not defined in terms of the selection outcome. There are no self-citations carrying the argument, and the acknowledged no-op/weak-edit risk (Sec. C.5) is an empirical limitation the authors discuss qualitatively, not a circular derivation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

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

The central method rests on three empirical assumptions about diffusion trajectory behavior, plus hyperparameters t_stop, tau, mask aggregation, squaring, and candidate count chosen from validation. No new physical entities are introduced; BIS is an engineered score, not an entity.

free parameters (5)
  • t_stop = 60 (fixed) or adaptive via tau
    Stopping timestep for candidate evaluation; chosen from validation curves in Fig. 7 and Fig. 13, with model-specific optima between 60 and 70.
  • tau (diminishing delta threshold) = 0.1
    Threshold for the adaptive stopping criterion DDC in App. C.2; used to set t_stop per sample, not in the main fixed experiments.
  • mask aggregation window = t in [80, 100]
    In Sec. 5.4, the time-averaged relevance mask replaces M_mean_t to improve mask robustness; the window is selected from timestep analysis.
  • squaring exponent on relevance mask = 2
    The squared mask in Eq. (6) sharpens foreground emphasis; chosen by design rather than by formal derivation.
  • number of candidates N = 10 or 11 in main tables; up to 100 in appendix
    Cost-accuracy tradeoff; the reported 41 percent NFE savings depends on N and t_stop.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption At early diffusion timesteps (t in [60,100] for a 100-step DDIM), relevance maps already localize the primary editing region, with later steps only refining details.
    Central to ELECT's early evaluation; empirically motivated in Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 9, but not proven for every model.
  • domain assumption Tweedie's formula (Eq. 7) applied at t_stop produces a latent estimate whose background difference from the source ranks seeds consistently with final-image background MSE.
    Basis for BIS; validated empirically across five models in Fig. 5 but not theoretically guaranteed.
  • domain assumption The aggregated mean relevance map across seeds approximates the ground-truth foreground mask without thresholding.
    Supports substituting (M_mean)^2 for the GT mask in Eq. (6); validated by parity in Fig. 2.
  • ad hoc to paper Instruction-guided editing models have a strong modification bias, so minimizing background change will rarely select a no-op sample.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. C.5: 'likely stems from the strong modification bias of many instruction-guided image-editing models'; protects against degenerate selection.
  • domain assumption Background consistency correlates with user-perceived edit quality and instruction adherence.
    Supported by the user study in App. C.1 (Pearson r = 0.534); used to justify the selection objective.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early Timestep Zero-Shot Candidate Selection for Instruction-Guided Image Editing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72IYEXRN

@misc{pith2026250413490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early Timestep Zero-Shot Candidate Selection for Instruction-Guided Image Editing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72IYEXRN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13490}
}
read the original abstract

Despite recent advances in diffusion models, achieving reliable image generation and editing remains challenging due to the inherent diversity induced by stochastic noise in the sampling process. Instruction-guided image editing with diffusion models offers user-friendly capabilities, yet editing failures, such as background distortion, frequently occur. Users often resort to trial and error, adjusting seeds or prompts to achieve satisfactory results, which is inefficient. While seed selection methods exist for Text-to-Image (T2I) generation, they depend on external verifiers, limiting applicability, and evaluating multiple seeds increases computational complexity. To address this, we first establish a multiple-seed-based image editing baseline using background consistency scores, achieving Best-of-N performance without supervision. Building on this, we introduce ELECT (Early-timestep Latent Evaluation for Candidate Selection), a zero-shot framework that selects reliable seeds by estimating background mismatches at early diffusion timesteps, identifying the seed that retains the background while modifying only the foreground. ELECT ranks seed candidates by a background inconsistency score, filtering unsuitable samples early based on background consistency while preserving editability. Beyond standalone seed selection, ELECT integrates into instruction-guided editing pipelines and extends to Multimodal Large-Language Models (MLLMs) for joint seed and prompt selection, further improving results when seed selection alone is insufficient. Experiments show that ELECT reduces computational costs (by 41 percent on average and up to 61 percent) while improving background consistency and instruction adherence, achieving around 40 percent success rates in previously failed cases - without any external supervision or training.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13490 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Instruction-guided image editing models are highly influenced by the noise seed. To address this issue, we propose a unique [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance comparison of Best of N with GT mask (green) vs. Best of N with Relevance Map (red). Best of N chooses outputs with the lowest background inconsistency com￾puted using either GT masks (w/ pixel-annotation) or the aggre￾gated relevance map (w/o pixel-annotation) (5). Selecting the best sample based on the relevance map (Ours: red lines) yields im￾provements comparable to selection based on ground truth ma… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the ELECT pipeline (top) and details of Background Inconsistency Score (BIS) computation (bottom). The top panel illustrates candidate selection via early stopping and BIS evaluation. The bottom panel details BIS computation, including crowd-sourced reference masks and background mask￾ing, ensuring consistent edits with minimal distortions. The BIS metric compares clean images with the original input to … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Efficiency Comparison of ELECT vs. Best of N by S BIS for Comparable Performance. Comparing the time cost (NFE) and reduction rate of ELECT with Best of N by S BIS (blue line), which undergoes all denoising steps, for comparable performance on various models [1, 7, 9, …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantitative Comparison of MSE between ELECT and Best of N by S BIS . Performance trend (MSE×104 ) with respect to the number of function evaluations (NFE), evaluated on two datasets with tstop = 60 (Top: PIE-Bench [19], Bottom: MagicBrush [50] test set). Results show …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ELECT performance variation with respect to stop￾ping timestep (tstop) with fixed number of seeds. This graph shows that performance improves as the stopping denoising step increases, eventually converging around around tstop = 70 for most models. In contrast, UltraEdi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of VIEScore (Semantic Consistency) across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Extracted masks at different timesteps. The right three columns show masks extracted at individual denoising steps (t = 95, 90, and 80) for IP2P [1]. The leftmost column of masks shows the averaged mask over t ∈ [80, 100], which consistently yields more reliable result…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Experimental motivation and implementation of the di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Higher background consistency (lower BG-MSE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Performance trend in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: ELECT performance variation with respect to stopping timestep (tstop) with fixed number of seeds. C.3. Analysis of Mask Extraction In prior work [31], relevance maps were extracted and sub￾sequently binarized using a threshold before being utilized. However, we observ…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Qualitative results of global editing with ELECT. C.5. Failure Cases. Although ELECT can occasionally select edits that are overly mild—preserving too much of the background and dampening the intended change (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: We further identified that the suitability of binary masks, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison with various signals for ELECT. D. Extending Relevance Maps to Rectified Flow Rectified Flow [27] models such as Stable Diffusion 3 [6] offer an alternative approach to modeling the noise-to-data transformation. The transformation is represented as an or￾di…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: ELECT extends to prompt selection by incorporating MLLMs, improving editing reliability when seed selection alone is insufficient. If either metric scores 0.0, the edit is classified as a fail￾ure, triggering the prompt selection process. We provide the useful prompt …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Qualitative Result for Seed Selection (dataset: PIE-bench [19], model: InstructPix2Pix [1]). 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Qualitative Result for Seed Selection (dataset: PIE-bench [19], model: MagicBrush [50]). “Change the torch to a flower” “remove the balls from the kitten's playtime” “Make the car shiny” “Replace the flowers with a dog” “Change the drink to wine” Best Selected Backgro…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Qualitative Result for Seed Selection (dataset: PIE-bench [19], model: InstructDiffusion [9]). 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Qualitative Result for Seed Selection (dataset: PIE-bench [19], model: MGIE [7]). “Replace the cat with a dog” “Add a hat to the cat” “Replace the garland with a hat” “Replace the cat with a panda” “Replace the flowers with a dog” Best Selected Background Inconsistenc…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Qualitative Result for Seed Selection (dataset: PIE-bench [19], model: UltraEdit [53]). 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Qualitative Result for Seed Selection (dataset: MagicBrush [50]). From top to bottom, each model’s results — InstructPix2Pix [1], MagicBrush [50], InstructDiffusion [9], MGIE [7], and UltraEdit [53] — are displayed in order, with two rows per model. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Qualitative Result for Prompt Selection (dataset: PIE-bench [19]). MLLM-generated instruction variants refine failed edits to enhance overall editing outcomes. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_25.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 18, 21

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Sub- biah, 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. 3

    work page 1901

  3. [3]

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

    Mingdeng Cao, Xintao Wang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, Xi- aohu Qie, and Yinqiang Zheng. Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and edit- ing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 22560–22570, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Find: Fine- tuning initial noise distribution with policy optimization for diffusion models

    Changgu Chen, Libing Yang, Xiaoyan Yang, Lianggangxu Chen, Gaoqi He, Changbo Wang, and Yang Li. Find: Fine- tuning initial noise distribution with policy optimization for diffusion models. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia, pages 6735–6744, 2024. 2, 3

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Prompt tuning inversion for text-driven image editing using diffusion models

    Wenkai Dong, Song Xue, Xiaoyue Duan, and Shumin Han. Prompt tuning inversion for text-driven image editing using diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7430–7440,

  6. [6]

    Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim En- tezari, Jonas M¨uller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, Dustin Podell, Tim Dockhorn, Zion English, and Robin Rombach. Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Forty- first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. 3, 15

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Guiding instruction-based image editing via multimodal large language models

    Tsu-Jui Fu, Wenze Hu, Xianzhi Du, William Yang Wang, Yinfei Yang, and Zhe Gan. Guiding instruction-based image editing via multimodal large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 20, 21

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Seed-data-edit technical report: A hybrid dataset for instruc- tional image editing, 2024

    Yuying Ge, Sijie Zhao, Chen Li, Yixiao Ge, and Ying Shan. Seed-data-edit technical report: A hybrid dataset for instruc- tional image editing, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Instructdiffusion: A generalist mod- eling interface for vision tasks

    Zigang Geng, Binxin Yang, Tiankai Hang, Chen Li, Shuyang Gu, Ting Zhang, Jianmin Bao, Zheng Zhang, Han Hu, Dong Chen, and Baining Guo. Instructdiffusion: A generalist mod- eling interface for vision tasks. In Proc. CVPR, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 19, 21

    2024

  2. [10]

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

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

  3. [11]

    Initno: Boosting text-to-image diffusion models via initial noise optimization

    Xiefan Guo, Jinlin Liu, Miaomiao Cui, Jiankai Li, Hongyu Yang, and Di Huang. Initno: Boosting text-to-image diffusion models via initial noise optimization. In CVPR, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  4. [12]

    Can we generate images with cot? let’s verify and reinforce image generation step by step

    Ziyu Guo, Renrui Zhang, Chengzhuo Tong, Zhizheng Zhao, Peng Gao, Hongsheng Li, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Can we generate images with cot? let’s verify and reinforce image generation step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13926,

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control. 2022. 2

    2022

  6. [14]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control

    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

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning

    Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08718, 2021. 2, 6, 12

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    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, and Ying Shan. Smartedit: Exploring complex instruction-based image editing with multimodal large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Co...

    2024

  9. [17]

    An edit friendly DDPM noise space: Inversion and manipulations

    Inbar Huberman-Spiegelglas, Vladimir Kulikov, and Tomer Michaeli. An edit friendly DDPM noise space: Inversion and manipulations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12469– 12478, 2024. 2

    2024

  10. [18]

    Hq-edit: A high-quality dataset for instruction-based image editing, 2024

    Mude Hui, Siwei Yang, Bingchen Zhao, Yichun Shi, Heng Wang, Peng Wang, Yuyin Zhou, and Cihang Xie. Hq-edit: A high-quality dataset for instruction-based image editing, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  11. [19]

    Pnp inversion: Boosting diffusion-based editing with 3 9 lines of code

    Xuan Ju, Ailing Zeng, Yuxuan Bian, Shaoteng Liu, and Qiang Xu. Pnp inversion: Boosting diffusion-based editing with 3 9 lines of code. International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations (ICLR), 2024. 2, 6, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22

    2024

  12. [20]

    Eta inversion: Designing an optimal eta function for diffusion-based real image editing

    Wonjun Kang, Kevin Galim, and Hyung Il Koo. Eta inversion: Designing an optimal eta function for diffusion-based real image editing. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 90–106. Springer, 2025. 2

    2025

  13. [21]

    Imagenhub: Standardizing the evaluation of conditional image generation models

    Max Ku, Tianle Li, Kai Zhang, Yujie Lu, Xingyu Fu, Wenwen Zhuang, and Wenhu Chen. Imagenhub: Standardizing the evaluation of conditional image generation models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2024. 5, 15

    2024

  14. [22]

    Ku, Dongfu Jiang, Cong Wei, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen

    Max W.F. Ku, Dongfu Jiang, Cong Wei, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen. Viescore: Towards explainable metrics for conditional image synthesis evaluation. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. 5, 6, 12, 15

    2023

  15. [23]

    Source prompt disentangled inversion for boosting image editability with diffusion models

    Ruibin Li, Ruihuang Li, Song Guo, and Lei Zhang. Source prompt disentangled inversion for boosting image editability with diffusion models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 404–421. Springer, 2025. 2

    2025

  16. [24]

    Moecontroller: Instruction-based arbitrary image manipulation with mixture- of-expert controllers, 2024

    Sijia Li, Chen Chen, and Haonan Lu. Moecontroller: Instruction-based arbitrary image manipulation with mixture- of-expert controllers, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  17. [25]

    Zone: Zero-shot instruction-guided local editing

    Shanglin Li, Bohan Zeng, Yutang Feng, Sicheng Gao, Xiuhui Liu, Jiaming Liu, Lin Li, Xu Tang, Yao Hu, Jianzhuang Liu, et al. Zone: Zero-shot instruction-guided local editing. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6254–6263...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Reinforcement learning with human feedback: Learning dynamic choices via pessimism

    Zihao Li, Zhuoran Yang, and Mengdi Wang. Reinforcement learning with human feedback: Learning dynamic choices via pessimism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18438, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003, 2022. 3, 15

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Inference-time scaling for diffu- sion models beyond scaling denoising steps

    Nanye Ma, Shangyuan Tong, Haolin Jia, Hexiang Hu, Yu- Chuan Su, Mingda Zhang, Xuan Yang, Yandong Li, Tommi Jaakkola, Xuhui Jia, et al. Inference-time scaling for diffu- sion models beyond scaling denoising steps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09732, 2025. 2, 3

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Guided image synthesis via initial image editing in diffusion model

    Jiafeng Mao, Xueting Wang, and Kiyoharu Aizawa. Guided image synthesis via initial image editing in diffusion model. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, page 5321–5329. ACM, 2023. 2

    2023

  22. [30]

    Semantic- driven initial image construction for guided image synthesis in diffusion model

    Jiafeng Mao, Xueting Wang, and Kiyoharu Aizawa. Semantic- driven initial image construction for guided image synthesis in diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08872, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Watch your steps: Local image and scene editing by text instructions

    Ashkan Mirzaei, Tristan Aumentado-Armstrong, Marcus A Brubaker, Jonathan Kelly, Alex Levinshtein, Konstantinos G Derpanis, and Igor Gilitschenski. Watch your steps: Local image and scene editing by text instructions. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 111–129. Springer,

  24. [32]

    Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 6038–6047, 2023. 13

    2023

  25. [33]

    Diffusion rejection sampling

    Byeonghu Na, Yeongmin Kim, Minsang Park, Donghyeok Shin, Wanmo Kang, and Il-Chul Moon. Diffusion rejection sampling. In Proceedings of the 41st International Con- ference on Machine Learning, pages 37097–37121. PMLR,

  26. [34]

    Introducing gpt-4o: our fastest and most affordable flagship model, 2024

    OpenAI. Introducing gpt-4o: our fastest and most affordable flagship model, 2024. https://openai.com/index/ hello-gpt-4o/ [Accessed: 22-09-2024]. 2, 5, 17

    2024

  27. [35]

    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. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  28. [36]

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 3

    2022

  29. [37]

    Emu edit: Precise image editing via recognition and genera- tion 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 genera- tion tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pag...

  30. [38]

    Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters. ArXiv, abs/2408.03314, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

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

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In International Conference on Learning Representations ,

  33. [41]

    Fast best-of-n decoding via speculative rejection

    Hanshi Sun, Momin Haider, Ruiqi Zhang, Huitao Yang, Jia- hao Qiu, Ming Yin, Mengdi Wang, Peter Bartlett, and Andrea Zanette. Fast best-of-n decoding via speculative rejection. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:32630– 32652, 2025. 3

    2025

  34. [42]

    Postedit: Posterior sampling for efficient zero-shot image editing

    Feng Tian, Yixuan Li, Yichao Yan, Shanyan Guan, Yanhao Ge, and Xiaokang Yang. Postedit: Posterior sampling for efficient zero-shot image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04844,

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Sheikh, and Eero P

    Zhou Wang, Alan Conrad Bovik, Hamid R. Sheikh, and Eero P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13:600–612, 2004. 6, 12

    2004

  36. [44]

    Dialogpaint: A dialog-based image editing model

    Jingxuan Wei, Shiyu Wu, Xin Jiang, and Yequan Wang. Dialogpaint: A dialog-based image editing model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10073, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Good seed makes a good crop: Discovering secret seeds in text-to-image diffusion models

    Katherine Xu, Lingzhi Zhang, and Jianbo Shi. Good seed makes a good crop: Discovering secret seeds in text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14828, 2024. 2, 3 10

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Inversion-free image editing with natural language

    Sihan Xu, Yidong Huang, Jiayi Pan, Ziqiao Ma, and Joyce Chai. Inversion-free image editing with natural language

  39. [47]

    Task-oriented diffusion inversion for high-fidelity text-based editing

    Yangyang Xu, Wenqi Shao, Yong Du, Haiming Zhu, Yang Zhou, Ping Luo, and Shengfeng He. Task-oriented diffusion inversion for high-fidelity text-based editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13395, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Editworld: Simulating world dynamics for instruction-following image editing, 2024

    Ling Yang, Bohan Zeng, Jiaming Liu, Hong Li, Minghao Xu, Wentao Zhang, and Shuicheng Yan. Editworld: Simulating world dynamics for instruction-following image editing, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  41. [49]

    The dawn of lmms: Preliminary explorations with gpt-4v (ision)

    Zhengyuan Yang, Linjie Li, Kevin Lin, Jianfeng Wang, Chung-Ching Lin, Zicheng Liu, and Lijuan Wang. The dawn of lmms: Preliminary explorations with gpt-4v (ision). arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17421, 9(1):1, 2023. 2, 3, 5

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

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

    Kai Zhang, Lingbo Mo, Wenhu Chen, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction- guided image editing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 31428–31449. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023. 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19, 21

    2023

  43. [51]

    Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 586–595,

    2018

  44. [52]

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogn...

    2024

  45. [53]

    Remove the balls from the kitten's playtime

    Haozhe Zhao, Xiaojian Ma, Liang Chen, Shuzheng Si, Ru- jie Wu, Kaikai An, Peiyu Yu, Minjia Zhang, Qing Li, and Baobao Chang. Ultraedit: Instruction-based fine-grained im- age editing at scale. In The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Instruction Following : Measures how well the edit aligns with the given prompt

  47. [55]

    Add booksto the table

    Background Consistency: Ensures that unedited regions of the image remain unchanged. 15 “Add booksto the table” “Bring books to the table” Success “Add books to the table” Failed MagicBrush Edit Fail! Best Prompt (Seed Variants) Original Prompt (more background artifact)Backgr...

  48. [56]

    A source image, which serves as the context for the editing instruction.,→

  49. [57]

    ,→ ,→ Your task is to create 10 diverse rephrasings of the editing instruction while preserving its original meaning

    An editing instruction, describing the intended change to be made to the source image. ,→ ,→ Your task is to create 10 diverse rephrasings of the editing instruction while preserving its original meaning. ,→ ,→ ### Guidelines:

  50. [58]

    The first variant should duplicate the given editing instruction exactly.,→

  51. [59]

    Subsequent variants should rephrase the instruction using different vocabulary, sentence structures, or expressions. ,→ ,→

  52. [60]

    ,→ ,→ ,→

    Ensure that all variants remain consistent with the source image and convey the same intent as the original instruction. ,→ ,→ ,→

  53. [61]

    Focus on concise and clear instructions

    Avoid adding unnecessary complexity or details. Focus on concise and clear instructions. ,→ ,→

  54. [62]

    replace the cat with a dog

    Each instruction should be under 15 words and easy to understand.,→ ### Input Example: Source Image: (an image of a cat on a table),→ Editing Instruction: "replace the cat with a dog",→ ### Output JSON Format: {{ "variants": [ "replace the cat with a dog", "swap the cat for a ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.