Unified multimodal models (UMMs) have shown impressive capabilities in complex natural image generation. However, their potential in computer-use planning tasks, which are closely related to our lives, remains rarely explored. Image generation and editing in computer-use tasks require capabilities like fine-grained perception and procedural understanding, and it is still unknown whether UMMs can finish these tasks well. Therefore, we propose PlanViz, a new benchmark designed to evaluate image generation and editing for computer-use tasks. We focus on sub-tasks which frequently involve in daily life and require planning steps. Specifically, three representative sub-tasks are designed: route planning, work diagramming, and web&UI displaying. Data quality is ensured by including large human efforts on question, reference and criteria annotation. Additionally, a task-adaptive score, PlanScore, is proposed for comprehensive and exact evaluation. PlanScore helps understanding the correctness, visual quality and efficiency of generated images. Through experiments, we highlight key limitations and opportunities for future research on this topic. Codes and supplementary materials are in https://github.com/lijunxian111/PlanViz.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Examples of generation (left) and editing (right). The queries are “generating a flowchart on how to apply a VISA” and “show what happens if setting ‘Chinese(Simplified)’ to the display language”. Both UMMs make mistakes: Bagel doesn’t provide a complete workflow and texts are meaningless; GPT-Image-1 provides garbled characters and fails to keep the total layout.
Figure 2: The overview of PlanViz. Our evaluation includes image generation and editing, with three proposed sub-tasks: route planning, work diagramming, and web&UI displaying. Compared with prior benchmarks, PlanViz focuses on planning-oriented generation and editing in computer-use scenarios, supported by human-annotated references and keypoints.
Benchmarks
Domain
Type
Planning
Keypoints
ROVER [ 28 ]
Natural/science image
Edit
✗
✗
GenExam [ 43 ]
Science(exam) image
Gen
✗
✓
WiseEdit [ 32 ]
Mostly natural image
Edit
✗
✗
Weave [ 11 ]
Natural/science/Logic
Gen&Edit
partial
✓
PlanViz (ours)
Computer-use image
Gen&Edit
✓
✓
Table 1: Comparison with other benchmarks.
Figure 3: The distribution (left) and the word cloud (right) of our benchmark. The green part represents route planning, while the orange part represents workflow diagramming, and the blue part represents web&UI displaying. The word cloud shows the hot topics in all questions of our benchmark.
Figure 4: Pipeline of data construction. It consists of four stages: high-quality data collecting and cleaning, human annotation, quality check, and prompt style transformation. These stages are displayed from the top-left to the bottom right.
Models
OmniGen2
GPT-Image-1
& Metrics
Cor
Vis
Ef
Cor
Vis
Ef
MLLM Mean
0.20
0.71
0.52
0.65
0.84
0.86
Human Mean
0.18
0.76
0.48
0.68
0.78
0.81
Human-MLLM r
0.92
0.83
0.85
0.88
0.79
0.83
Human-MLLM MAE
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.08
0.05
Table 2: Correlation between human and model judgments.
Models
Params
Route Planning
Workflow Diagraming
Web&UI Displaying
Overall
Cor ↑
Vis ↑
Ef ↑
Avg ↑
Cor ↑
Vis ↑
Ef ↑
Avg ↑
Cor ↑
Vis ↑
Ef ↑
Avg ↑
Avg ↑
Open-source Edit-only Models
AnyEdit [ 51 ]
1B
0.00
0.82
0.70
0.51
0.00
0.50
0.31
0.27
0.01
0.56
0.52
0.36
0.36
OmniGen [ 48 ]
4B
0.00
0.77
0.62
0.46
0.00
0.58
0.16
0.25
0.01
0.34
0.31
0.22
0.31
UltraEdit [ 54 ]
8B
0.02
0.44
0.29
0.25
0.05
0.54
0.17
0.25
0.03
0.71
0.58
0.44
0.31
SD-3.5-large [ 33 ]
8B
0.02
0.41
0.29
0.24
0.01
0.30
0.17
0.16
0.02
0.14
0.22
0.13
0.18
Table 3: Main results on image editing tasks. “Avg” means the average of scores. All scores are between 0 and 1. We highlight the best performance of Cor , for it is the most important score. We also add scores from our annotated reference images.
Figure 5: Comparison of previous judgments and ours.
Models
Params
Route Planning
Workflow Diagramming
Web & UI Displaying
Overall
Cor ↑
Vis ↑
Ef ↑
Avg ↑
Cor ↑
Vis ↑
Ef ↑
Avg ↑
Cor ↑
Vis ↑
Ef ↑
Avg ↑
Avg ↑
Open-source Generation-only Models
OmniGen [ 48 ]
4B
0.01
0.85
0.75
0.54
0.01
0.43
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.75
0.24
0.40
0.38
SD-3.5-large [ 33 ]
8B
0.24
0.81
0.60
0.55
0.26
0.45
0.31
0.34
0.67
0.58
0.45
0.57
0.49
FLUX.1 dev [ 22 ]
12B
0.10
0.95
0.51
0.52
0.05
0.46
0.18
0.23
0.70
0.76
0.60
0.69
0.48
Hidream-I1-Full [ 6 ]
17B
0.03
0.85
0.27
0.38
0.00
0.56
0.11
0.22
0.06
0.54
0.12
0.24
0.28
Table 4: Main results on image generation tasks. “Avg” means the average of scores. All scores are between 0 and 1. We highlight the best performance of Cor , for it is the most important score on these tasks. “Generation” means image generation here.
Models
Open (Gen)
Closed (Gen)
Open (Edit)
Closed (Edit)
Cor
Vis
Ef
Cor
Vis
Ef
Cor
Vis
Ef
Cor
Vis
Ef
FLUX.1 dev
0.20
0.71
0.39
0.67
0.79
0.63
0.05
0.55
0.39
0.05
0.47
0.31
Ovis-U1
0.14
0.58
0.40
0.23
0.50
0.93
0.05
0.34
0.30
0.14
0.35
0.19
OmniGen2
0.23
0.66
0.47
0.78
0.76
0.60
0.14
0.79
0.58
0.08
0.75
0.60
Bagel
0.11
0.66
0.43
0.47
0.61
0.45
0.08
0.08
0.14
0.09
0.17
0.07
GPT-Image-1
0.83
0.94
0.94
0.96
1.00
0.93
0.39
0.55
0.75
0.44
0.84
0.78
Table 5: Performance comparison between open-ended questions and closed-ended questions. Each score is the average of three sub-tasks. Best correctness is highlighted .
Figure 6: Score distribution across different models. We choose Cor (top) and Vis (bottom) of route planning.
Figure 7: Qualitative examples of Route Planning, Workflow Diagramming, and Web&UI Displaying (top to bottom). Each row shows Generation on the left and Editing on the right, separated by a small gap. Editing columns show Original, Reference, and outputs.
Sub-tasks
Gen
Edit
Cor
Vis
Ef
Cor
Vis
Ef
Route Planning
0.99
0.99
0.94
0.75
0.83
0.93
Workflow Diagramming
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.55
0.27
0.94
Web & UI Displaying
0.99
0.99
0.84
0.77
0.68
0.92
Table 6: Performance of code rendering. All evaluation follows the main table. We only count the successfully rendered samples here.
Figure 8: Gap between knowing how to plan and real visualization of UMMs. The query is: Design a process-oriented visual chart to explain how to please generate a clear and detailed flowchart illustrating the process of training a convolutional neural network (CNN). We reports the textual planning outputs using understanding mode, and the related generated images in generation mode.
Modern image editing models produce realistic results but struggle with abstract, multi step instructions (e.g., ``make this advertisement more vegetarian-friendly''). Prior agent based methods decompose such tasks but rely on handcrafted pipelines or teacher imitation, limiting flexibility and decoupling learning from actual editing outcomes. We propose an experiential framework for long-horizon image editing, where a planner generates structured atomic decompositions and an orchestrator selects tools and regions to execute each step. A vision language judge provides outcome-based rewards for instruction adherence and visual quality. The orchestrator is trained to maximize these rewards, and successful trajectories are used to refine the planner. By tightly coupling planning with reward driven execution, our approach yields more coherent and reliable edits than single-step or rule-based multistep baselines.
Anirudh Sundara Rajan, Krishna Kumar Singh, Yong Jae Lee
University of Wisconsin–Madison, WI, USA · Adobe Research, San Jose, CA, USA
Visual planning represents a crucial facet of human intelligence, especially in tasks that require complex spatial reasoning and navigation. Yet, in machine learning, this inherently visual problem is often tackled through a verbal-centric lens. While recent research demonstrates the promise of fully visual approaches, they suffer from significant computational inefficiency due to the step-by-step planning-by-generation paradigm. In this work, we present EAR, an editing-as-reasoning paradigm that reformulates visual planning as a single-step image transformation. To isolate intrinsic reasoning from visual recognition, we employ abstract puzzles as probing tasks and introduce AMAZE, a procedurally generated dataset that features the classical Maze and Queen problems, covering distinct, complementary forms of visual planning. The abstract nature of AMAZE also facilitates automatic evaluation of autoregressive and diffusion-based models in terms of both pixel-wise fidelity and logical validity. We assess leading proprietary and open-source editing models. The results show that they all struggle in the zero-shot setting, finetuning on basic scales enables remarkable generalization to larger in-domain scales and out-of-domain scales and geometries. However, our best model that runs on high-end hardware fails to match the zero-shot efficiency of human solvers, highlighting a persistent gap in neural visual reasoning.
Zhimu Zhou, Yanpeng Zhao, Qiuyu Liao +2
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, BIGAI · Renmin University of China
With the recent fast development of generative models, instruction-based image editing has shown great potential in generating high-quality images. However, the quality of editing highly depends on carefully designed instructions, placing the burden of task decomposition and sequencing entirely on the user. To achieve autonomous image editing, we present PhotoAgent, a system that advances image editing through explicit aesthetic planning. Specifically, PhotoAgent formulates autonomous image editing as a long-horizon decision-making problem. It reasons over user aesthetic intent, plans multi-step editing actions via tree search, and iteratively refines results through closed-loop execution with memory and visual feedback, without requiring step-by-step user prompts. To support reliable evaluation in real-world scenarios, we introduce UGC-Edit, an aesthetic evaluation benchmark consisting of 7,000 photos and a learned aesthetic reward model. We also construct a test set containing 1,017 photos to systematically assess autonomous photo editing performance. Extensive experiments demonstrate that PhotoAgent consistently improves both instruction adherence and visual quality compared with baseline methods. The project page is https://mdyao.github.io/PhotoAgent/.
Mingde Yao, Zhiyuan You, King-Man Tam +2
MMLab, CUHK · CPII under InnoHK · Institute of Science Tokyo +2