Papers for

image editing software developers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Codec guided watermarking improves traceability of diffusion images

CLaW: Codec-Guided Adaptive Latent Watermarking for Traceable Diffusion Image Generation

Abstract: With the rapid advancement of text-to-image diffusion models, increasingly realistic AI-generated content has raised serious concerns about misuse and copyright infringement. Digital watermarking offers a promising solution by enabling user-level traceability, yet existing methods remain difficult to deploy at scale, hindered by costly model retraining or detection, poor effectiveness-fidelity trade-offs, and limited robustness to image transformations. To address these challenges, we propose CLaW (Codec-guided Latent Watermarking), a robust and efficient watermarking framework for traceable diffusion image generation with frozen diffusion backbones and inversion-free detection. Specifically, CLaW first uses a pretrained watermark codec to map each watermark message to a latent residual, enabling low-cost sampling-time injection. Then, the residual is injected within a late denoising window, where image semantics are better preserved and the watermark signal is less perturbed by subsequent denoising updates, yielding a better balance between watermark effectiveness and image fidelity. Furthermore, we introduce a decoder-guided adaptive injection mechanism that uses decoding confidence as feedback to dynamically calibrate watermark strength, reinforcing weak watermark signals and improving robustness under image transformations. Extensive experiments show that CLaW preserves high visual fidelity and achieves state-of-the-art robustness under image transformations, enabling reliable user-level traceability.

Thu 29 OctComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionCryptography and Security
The gist
AI can now create very realistic images from text, but this makes it hard to tell which images were made by which user, causing issues like misuse and copyright problems. The authors present CLaW, a method that hides special codes inside generated images without changing how they look much. These codes can be detected later without needing to change the AI model, even after the image is edited. This helps track who created the image while keeping pictures clear and resistant to distortions.
Open → 2610.39160v1

CrossPair enables flexible image edits by learning from before and after examples

CrossPair: Unlocking Generalist Visual Transformation Learning in Image Editors

Abstract: Language models switch tasks from demonstrations, but vision still often relies on separate systems for restoration, editing, and stylization. A before--after example offers a shared instruction only if the transferable change can be separated from the scene that demonstrates it. We introduce CrossPair, which adapts a pretrained multimodal image editor to transfer diverse transformations from one exemplar pair. Exemplar-before, exemplar-after, and query images take fixed roles in its native VLM and VAE pathways: the VLM extracts operation semantics, while the VAE retains fine appearance and structure. A training-only, change-aware DINOv3 objective aligns feature-change directions across content-distinct scenes, guiding the output to follow the demonstrated relation without an inference-time encoder. We construct Transform-360K by grouping filtered pairs from conditional representations, restoration, editing, virtual try-on, and stylization under shared transformations. On Relation252K-derived seen and held-out transformations, \method improves target agreement and edit-direction similarity over released systems. Ablations show that the semantic and visual exemplar routes are complementary and that DINO relation alignment further strengthens transfer; Transform-360K training also improves aggregate held-out-operation scores.

Sun 25 OctComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Editing or changing images in many ways usually requires different tools or systems. This paper introduces CrossPair, a method that learns how to apply a variety of image changes by looking at just one example of an image before and after an edit. The method separates the idea of the change from the content of the image, so it can apply the same change to different pictures. The authors show CrossPair works better than existing tools on diverse editing tasks by training it on a large set of image transformations.
Open → 2610.34333v1

Image editing models struggle to count and preserve objects correctly

ABACUS: A Benchmark for Image Editing Models to Assess Object Category and Counting Under Scene Conservation

Abstract: Instruction-based image editing models can now add, remove a specified number of objects or change their category while preserving the scene. Yet these models often fail to produce the correct number, and these failures grow sharply as scenes become more complex and the requested count increases. Current benchmarks largely miss this problem: they score edits with holistic similarity metrics or with vision-language model (VLM) judges that are themselves poor at counting, so numerical errors go unnoticed or are graded incorrectly. As a result, the true numerical ability of today's editing models has never been accurately measured. We address this issue with ABACUS, a new benchmark, evaluation protocol and dedicated scoring metric for numerical image editing. Our protocol is judge-free: no VLM or MLLM scores an edit or counts objects (a VLM only confirms the category of rare ambiguous crops). Instead, it verifies each edit at the instance level against panoptic ground truth confirmed by detector consensus, checking both that the exact requested count was achieved and that the rest of the scene was preserved, across the add, remove and change operations. By evaluating leading image editors, our method reveals substantial numerical editing failures that worsen with increasing scene complexity and object count; failures that prior benchmarks often overlooked or misjudged.

Tue 20 OctComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
Image editing tools can add, remove, or change objects in pictures while keeping the rest of the scene intact. But these tools often make mistakes with how many objects they add or remove, especially in complex images. The authors created ABACUS, a new test that checks if the edited images have the exact number of objects requested and if the scene is otherwise unchanged. Their test found that many popular editing tools fail at counting accurately, a problem other tests usually miss.
Open → 2610.28316v1

Classifier-Free Guidance harms controllability in text and image editing

Rethinking Classifier-Free Guidance for TI2I Flow Matching

Abstract: We study Text-and-Image-to-Image (TI2I) flow matching methods for controllable image editing. In a broader generative modeling context, Classifier-Free Guidance (CFG) is established as a key component responsible for high quality outputs. However, we argue that its role in TI2I modeling is poorly understood. Specifically, we make the surprising observation that the CFG mechanism is implicitly harmful for editing in the noisy phase of flow modeling, hindering instruction following and controllability. We propose a simple correction in the early flow steps, enabling a richer alignment-preservation tradeoff at no extra cost. The effectiveness of our approach is demonstrated on both pixel-space and latent TI2I flows.

Thu 15 OctComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionMachine Learning
The gist
This paper looks at a technique used in AI image editing called Classifier-Free Guidance, which is usually helpful for making high quality images. The authors found that, surprisingly, this technique can actually hurt the ability to control the editing when used in certain noisy stages of the process. They suggest a simple way to fix this early in the editing steps, which helps keep better alignment between the instructions and the image changes without extra cost. Their fix works well on different methods of image editing based on flows.
Open → 2610.21550v1

FreeMatching improves image matching beyond simple motion and shapes

Beyond Spatio-Temporal Priors: A Generalizable Approach for Dense Correspondence Matching

Abstract: Dense correspondence matching has historically been bounded by simplifying spatio-temporal priors, such as smooth motion and rigid geometry. While effective for classical tasks, these assumptions break down in image editing and reference-guided generation (IEG), where transformations can preserve visual identity while breaking physical continuity. To establish identity-preserving correspondence across such transformations, we introduce FreeMatching, a generalizable framework combining generative and semantic foundation representations with heterogeneous supervision from classical datasets, tracked videos, and synthetic scenes. Teacher-guided iterative refinement further improves correspondence in IEG without dense correspondence annotations. Experimentally, a single FreeMatching model substantially improves correspondence quality on challenging IEG image pairs while retaining competitive performance on classical benchmarks. Furthermore, we demonstrate its utility as a quantitative metric for evaluating identity preservation, with scores that correlate with human judgment. The code is available at https://github.com/luping-liu/FreeMatching.

Thu 8 OctComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionMachine Learning
The gist
Matching parts between two images has usually relied on simple ideas like smooth movement or rigid shapes. These ideas work well for classic tasks but fail when images undergo complex edits that keep identities the same but change physical connections. The authors introduce FreeMatching, which combines advanced image features and learns from diverse sources to better match images even with tricky edits. This new method also helps measure how well identity is preserved during edits and aligns better with human judgments.
Open → 2610.12421v1

Benchmark reveals watermark detection strengths after generative editing

Latent Watermarks under Generative Editing: A Benchmark and Analysis of Detection Survival

Abstract: Ordinary prompt-based editing can cause latent watermark detection to fail without explicitly targeting the watermark. We benchmark eight watermark methods against five editors across four generative backbones, four editing strengths, and five semantic categories, with edit-validity and threshold checks. Separating editing from seven subsequent distortions reveals that editing alone primarily distinguishes Tree-Ring, while added distortions expose a broader spectrum of detection survival. Sequential edits reveal a second hidden difference: score separation can decline while detection rates remain near their ceiling. Across methods, standardized clean score separation ($d'$) organizes composite-survival tiers, whereas spatial overlap adds little to predicting edit-only survival beyond clean detectability. Embedding-strength interventions in two methods link higher clean separation to higher post-edit separation. In HSTR, the margin contrast is positive, while the angular layout contrast at matched clean separation remains unresolved. Together, outcome decomposition and continuous separation expose differences hidden by aggregate TPR. Method tiers are stable under threshold recalibration at the main operating points and alternative composite weights. Clean $d'$ is thus a useful empirical diagnostic within this benchmark, with mixed transfer to unseen methods. Code and supporting artifacts are planned for a separate release.

Wed 7 OctComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Detecting hidden watermarks in edited images is tricky because some editing types can make detection fail. The authors studied how well eight watermarking methods stand up to various editing techniques on different image generators. They found that certain methods are more resilient when images are edited, and some measures predict detection success better than others. Their work helps understand which watermark methods survive editing and which do not, guiding future watermarking efforts.
Open → 2610.09702v1

Vision models struggle with physical scene errors in image edits

Do Vision Models Learn Physical Constraints or Rendering Shortcuts? A Counterfactual Benchmark for Grounded Physical Consistency

Abstract: Modern image editing models can satisfy a text instruction while breaking the physics of the edited scene. A new object may cast no shadow, a mirror may fail to reflect visible geometry, or an object may float above a surface that should support it. We study physical plausibility diagnosis, detecting whether an edited image violates scene physics, naming the violation type, localizing the affected region, and explaining the failure in language. We introduce a counterfactual benchmark whose controlled synthetic component uses Mitsuba~3 to generate 5,500 images from 500 scene families. Each family contains one clean image and ten matched violations involving shadows, reflection, support, surface response, and occlusion. The renderer pipeline provides category labels, affected-region masks and boxes, scene metadata, and explanation targets. We use LLaVA-1.5-7B, Qwen2.5-VL-7B, and InternVL3.5-8B as diagnostic baselines rather than proposed methods. On a 1,650-image synthetic test set, the adapted baselines reach 64.0--67.8\% category macro-F1 on standard held-out scenes. For LLaVA-1.5-7B, category macro-F1 falls from 64.0\% on the standard split to 40.8\% under intervention shift. This gap shows that high in-distribution accuracy partly reflects cues tied to rendering and counterfactual construction.

Tue 6 OctComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Sometimes, computer programs that edit images according to text instructions can make mistakes that break the basic physics of the scene, like objects floating or shadows missing. The researchers created a special synthetic dataset to test if these programs notice such physically impossible mistakes. They found that while these models do somewhat recognize errors, they often rely on clues from how images are made rather than understanding physics properly. This means current models might not truly grasp the physical rules behind realistic images.
Open → 2610.09205v1

Latent watermarking methods have limited robustness to image changes

On the Intrinsic Limited Robustness of Latent-Based Watermarking

Abstract: Existing latent-based watermarking methods for diffusion models have overestimated their robustness to image distortions, including geometric transformations such as rotation, scaling, and translation (RST). Moreover, this paradigm of watermarking approaches may suffer from inherent limitations arising from the domain in which the watermark is embedded. In this paper, we provide the first theoretical analysis explaining why these methods lack invariance to perturbations. By relaxing the invariant relation, we derive a maximum perturbation bound that characterizes the relationship between pixel-space perturbations and their corresponding effects in latent space. In addition, we present the first analytical formulation that captures all components of practical detection mechanisms. Finally, we conduct experiments to validate the theoretical findings and the limitations of latent-based watermarking methods. Our theoretical and empirical results indicate that, under the current design paradigm, latent-based watermarking methods intrinsically exhibit limited robustness. We conclude by providing the analytical tool and design guidelines that future research could follow.

Tue 6 OctMachine LearningCryptography and Security
The gist
Watermarking is a way to secretly mark images to prove ownership. The authors found that common watermarking methods that hide marks in hidden layers of AI image models are not very strong against changes like rotating, scaling, or moving the image. They explain why these methods struggle with such changes using math, and they confirm their explanation through experiments. This means current watermarking methods may fail when images are mildly edited.
Open → 2610.08178v1

Protective image edits survive resizing to better block malicious changes

Protective Perturbations Must Survive the Resize: Scale-Robust Image Immunization against Malicious Editing

Abstract: Protective perturbations aim to stop malicious instruction-guided editing of personal photos, but they are optimized and evaluated at the editor's working resolution, whereas shared photos have 10 megapixels or more and editors first downscale them by an unknown factor. We model this resize as a frequency-selective channel. In this model, a perturbation computed at the native resolution decays with the downscaling factor and is weak even without a resize, and a perturbation computed at a fixed working resolution protects only a window of scales. The best worst-case protection over an unknown range of scales degrades only logarithmically with the width of the range, and averaging over scales does not reach it. Guided by this analysis, we propose SRIM, which samples a grid of anchor scales covering the whole range, with weights that favor the currently weakest scale, at the cost of standard expectation over transformation. On full-resolution photos of 9 to 30 megapixels and downscaling factors from 2 to 8, SRIM raises the worst-case disruption of FLUX.2-klein edits from 0.192 LPIPS, attained by the strongest published protection, to 0.463. At equal visibility, it roughly doubles the protection. The same protected photos also protect against the 9B model and against FLUX.2-dev, with worst cases of 0.450 and 0.386 against at most 0.184 for published protections, and SRIM leads on InstructPix2Pix as well.

Mon 5 OctComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Photos shared online are often resized by unknown amounts before someone edits them, which makes protective changes in the image weaker or ineffective. The authors studied how resizing affects these protections and found that making protections work across all sizes is challenging but possible. They developed a new method called SRIM that creates image protections strong enough to survive resizing and still block unwanted AI edits. This method roughly doubles the protection compared to the best existing ones and works well against several powerful editing models.
Open → 2610.07464v1

PixelDense improves pixel diffusion by separating semantic and geometric features

PixelDense: Dense Prediction as Representation Alignment for Pixel Diffusion

Abstract: Representation alignment (REPA) accelerates diffusion transformer training, but its alignment targets are almost exclusively semantic encoders such as DINOv2 and CLIP. Recent analysis points to spatial structure, not global semantics, as the carrier of the alignment effect, yet dense-prediction foundation models trained to predict that structure remain overlooked as REPA targets. In pixel-space diffusion, SAM2, Depth Anything v2, and Metric3D v2 each outperform the DINOv2-only GenEval baseline, with the two geometric teachers leading the segmentation teacher. A flat sum of all four teachers, however, lands below the best single geometric teacher, as semantic and geometric gradients compete for one denoiser projection. We introduce PixelDense, which routes DINOv2 and SAM2 through a semantic projection stream, routes Depth Anything v2 and Metric3D v2 through a geometric projection stream, and adds a weight-space orthogonality penalty that keeps the two streams in disjoint subspaces. All four teachers are frozen during training and dropped at inference. Applied to PixelGen and DeCo with a single recipe, PixelDense improves GenEval, DPG-Bench, and HPS v2.1, raises PixelGen-XXL's GenEval Overall from 0.7927 to 0.8093, and beats every single-teacher and unfactored multi-teacher variant. In partial-noise reconstruction, independent panoptic, depth, and surface-normal probes show up to 53.1% PQ gain and 36.0% depth AbsRel reduction at $τ=0.5$ across COCO and Flickr30K. From random initialization, PixelDense also reaches the baseline's peak GenEval 1.23x faster. In SDEdit editing on PIE-Bench, PixelDense keeps more of the source background and layout at every edit strength, raising background PSNR by up to 2.2 dB.

Wed 30 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Diffusion models that generate images learn faster and create better results when trained using guidance from other models. This paper finds that using models which focus on spatial structure and geometry, rather than just overall meaning, improves training. The researchers introduce PixelDense, a method that separates semantic and geometric information into different streams to prevent conflicts during training. This approach leads to faster learning and improved image editing and reconstruction quality.
Open → 2610.00483v1

New method improves stability and quality in one-step image diffusion editing

Beyond Temporal Smoothing: Spatial Energy Budgets Stabilize One-Step Diffusion Editing

Abstract: One-step text-guided diffusion editing is efficient but prone to spatially misallocated updates that distort the edited object and alter the background. Existing methods often improve stability by averaging the editing field across timesteps. We instead identify spatial energy misallocation as a distinct and measurable failure mode: across two independent noise draws, the residual field is essentially unrepeatable, making the background field unreliable for direct transport, while its total energy still sets a usable magnitude for the draw at hand. BudEdit turns that magnitude into an explicit budget and reallocates it to edit-relevant regions selected jointly by residual energy and cross-attention, controlling where editing energy is spent rather than averaging over timesteps. The resulting training-free, inversion-free editor spends the budget on transport and reuses it to scale a correction in a lower-noise gated refinement. The budgeted injection field matches its prescribed budget exactly and vanishes on the identified background support, by construction. On PIE-Bench with SD-Turbo, BudEdit outperforms ChordEdit under each method's reported default settings on all 11 evaluated metrics, including a $2.1$\,dB gain in background PSNR, $31$\% lower DINO, and $36$\% lower LPIPS, while improving all five editing-quality metrics and reporting the lowest runtime in the comparison.

Sat 26 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Diffusion editing lets people change images using descriptive text but often causes unwanted distortions in the background or main object. The paper’s authors discovered that existing methods average changes over time, which can cause inconsistent updates across the image. They propose a new approach, BudEdit, that carefully controls how much editing energy is used and where it is applied, focusing only on relevant parts of the image. This approach improves the quality and stability of edits without needing extra training or complex inversion steps.
Open → 2609.32841v1