While Instruction-based Image Editing (IIE) has achieved significant progress, existing benchmarks pursue task breadth via mixed evaluations. This paradigm obscures a critical failure mode crucial in professional applications: the inconsistent performance of models across tasks of varying semantic scales. To address this gap, we introduce Omni IIE Bench, a high-quality, human-annotated benchmark specifically designed to diagnose the editing consistency of IIE models in practical application scenarios. Omni IIE Bench features an innovative dual-track diagnostic design: (1) Single-turn Consistency, comprising shared-context task pairs of attribute modification and entity replacement; and (2) Multi-turn Coordination, involving continuous dialogue tasks that traverse semantic scales. The benchmark is constructed via an exceptionally rigorous multi-stage human filtering process, incorporating a quality standard enforced by computer vision graduate students and an industry relevance review conducted by professional designers. We perform a comprehensive evaluation of 8 mainstream IIE models using Omni IIE Bench. Our analysis quantifies, for the first time, a prevalent performance gap: nearly all models exhibit a significant performance degradation when transitioning from low-semantic-scale to high-semantic-scale tasks. Omni IIE Bench provides critical diagnostic tools and insights for the development of next-generation, more reliable, and stable IIE models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Omni IIE Bench collects seed images from 12 datasets and uses GPT-4o to generate image descriptions. The descriptions are then randomly modified by GPT-4o . For single-turn dialogue generation, semantic scales are done at low and high levels; for multi-turn dialogue generation, modifications are randomly interleaved between the two levels. After that, the original descriptions, modified descriptions, and original images are input into Nano Banana for image generation, and the results are processed with GroundingDINO and SAM to obtain masks. Finally, all generated images and masks undergo strict manual review.
Benchmark
Human Verified
Provides Mask
Practical Scenarios
Semantic Scale
Dialogue Length
I2EBench [ 18 ]
✓
✓
✗
✓
1
EditBench [ 27 ]
✓
✓
✗
✓
1
EditVal [ 1 ]
✓
✗
✗
✗
1
EmuEdit [ 24 ]
✓
✗
✗
✗
1
AnyEdit [ 40 ]
✗
✓
✗
✗
1
CompBench [ 11 ]
✓
✓
✗
✗
2
Table 1: Comparison of IIE Benchmarks on Key Diagnostic Dimensions.
Figure 2: Overview of manual curation and filtering
Figure 3: Source Distribution of Datasets in Omni IIE Bench
Model
LPIPS ( ↓ )
CLIP ( ↑ )
QA ( ↑ )
Image Quality ( ↑ )
Overall
FG
BG
ALL
FG
BG
ALL
PSNR
SSIM
Qwen-image-edit [ 32 ]
0.245
0.327
0.450
0.887
0.891
0.889
0.744
14.401
0.455
0.687
InstructPix2Pix [ 3 ]
0.284
0.441
0.569
0.774
0.775
0.841
0.316
12.423
0.438
0.530
ICEdit [ 47 ]
0.252
0.295
0.425
0.867
0.875
0.868
0.453
15.541
0.507
0.626
MGIE [ 7 ]
0.261
0.294
0.426
0.858
0.864
0.859
0.070
14.733
0.480
0.520
HIVE [ 45 ]
0.287
0.406
0.526
0.849
0.796
0.794
0.259
13.423
0.414
0.527
Table 2: Performance comparison of IIE models on a single turn. Text colors indicate top performances: 1st , 2nd , 3rd . Arrows ( ↑ / ↓ ) indicate whether higher or lower values are better. The Overall score is calculated by the formula 41[33−(∑LPIPS)+3∑CLIP+QA+SSIM] , where ΣLPIPS and ΣCLIP are the sums of their respective FG, BG, and ALL columns.
Model
LPIPS ( ↓ )
CLIP ( ↑ )
QA ( ↑ )
Image Quality ( ↑ )
Overall
FG
BG
ALL
FG
BG
ALL
PSNR
SSIM
Qwen-image-edit
0.254
0.390
0.510
0.888
0.879
0.877
0.818
13.521
0.391
0.676
InstructPix2Pix
0.296
0.552
0.669
0.842
0.701
0.703
0.560
10.910
0.393
0.549
ICEdit
0.263
0.388
0.515
0.875
0.845
0.842
0.524
14.537
0.435
0.606
MGIE
0.325
0.580
0.685
0.801
0.710
0.723
0.054
10.508
0.350
0.404
HIVE
0.294
0.484
0.607
0.847
0.771
0.770
0.487
12.415
0.337
0.540
Table 3: Performance comparison of IIE models on multi turns. Text colors indicate top performances: 1st , 2nd , 3rd . Arrows ( ↑ / ↓ ) indicate whether higher or lower values are better.
Figure 4: Visualizing Single-Turn and Multi-Turn Consistency Across Multiple Models
Figure 5: Comparison of 8 IIE models across 8 metrics on Omni IIE Bench. The charts show normalized scores for (a) the Single-turn Consistency task and (b) the Multi-turn Coordination task.
Figure 6: Alignment between Omni IIE Bench ranks (Y-axis) and human evaluation ranks (X-axis).
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Cases of Single Turn Low
Figure 8: Cases of Single Turn High
Figure 9: Cases of Multi Turn
Model
LPIPS ( ↓ )
CLIP ( ↑ )
QA ( ↑ )
Image Quality ( ↑ )
Overall
FG
BG
ALL
FG
BG
ALL
PSNR
SSIM
Qwen-image-edit
0.231
0.299
0.414
0.910
0.899
0.910
0.780
15.323
0.474
0.710
Instruct_Pix2Pix
0.284
0.435
0.555
0.861
0.797
0.796
0.400
12.476
0.443
0.559
ICEdit
0.250
0.311
0.407
0.888
0.896
0.889
0.550
16.107
0.519
0.662
MGIE
0.264
0.294
0.406
0.894
0.898
0.895
0.080
15.328
0.495
0.539
HIVE
0.283
0.376
0.505
0.873
0.836
0.836
0.300
14.257
0.444
0.551
Appendix
Table 4: Performance comparison of IIE models on the Low group (metrics grouped by category). Text colors indicate top performances: 1st , 2nd , 3rd . Arrows ( ↑ / ↓ ) indicate whether higher or lower values are better. The Overall score is calculated by the formula 41[33−(∑LPIPS)+3∑CLIP+QA+SSIM] , where ΣLPIPS and ΣCLIP are the sums of their respective FG, BG, and ALL columns.
Model
LPIPS ( ↓ )
CLIP ( ↑ )
QA ( ↑ )
Image Quality ( ↑ )
Overall
FG
BG
ALL
FG
BG
ALL
PSNR
SSIM
Qwen-image-edit
0.264
0.360
0.495
0.859
0.866
0.866
0.710
13.241
0.431
0.657
Instruct_Pix2Pix
0.283
0.448
0.586
0.816
0.749
0.747
0.230
12.356
0.431
0.498
ICEdit
0.254
0.311
0.448
0.840
0.849
0.842
0.360
14.830
0.492
0.589
MGIE
0.264
0.313
0.452
0.813
0.821
0.813
0.060
13.983
0.461
0.499
HIVE
0.278
0.415
0.552
0.819
0.783
0.778
0.220
13.122
0.407
0.501
Appendix
Table 5: Performance comparison of IIE models on the High group (metrics grouped by category). Text colors indicate top performances: 1st , 2nd , 3rd . Arrows ( ↑ / ↓ ) indicate whether higher or lower values are better. Arrows ( ↑ / ↓ ) indicate whether higher or lower values are better. The Overall score is calculated by the formula 41[33−(∑LPIPS)+3∑CLIP+QA+SSIM] , where ΣLPIPS and ΣCLIP are the sums of their respective FG, BG, and ALL columns.
Instruction-based Image Editing (IIE) aims to transform a given image into a new one based on textual instructions. Advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have accelerated progress toward practical ``one-sentence image editing" systems. This survey presents a systematic taxonomy and comprehensive review of IIE research, structured around five core dimensions: (1) task definition and hierarchical categorization of editing operations, (2) methodologies for training data construction, (3) architectural evolution from GAN-based to diffusion and autoregressive paradigms, (4) standardized evaluation metrics and benchmark development, and (5) introduction of commercial solutions. Our analysis shows critical technological milestones across model generations. We further propose a Comprehensive, in-Depth, and Diagnostic benchmark for IIE task (CDD-IIE Bench), which can rigorously assess the multiple aspects of model performance. Through empirical comparisons of open-source solutions, we highlight their respective capabilities and limitations. Finally, we discuss future research directions to advance the field.
Xianghao Zang, Zijian Jiang, Jiarong Cheng +8
Institute of Artificial Intelligence (TeleAI), China Telecom, Beijing, China.
In recent years, there have been notable advancements in the area of instruction-based image editing (IIE), which focuses on the automatic alteration of input images using a model. Nevertheless, assessing the effectiveness of these editing models poses a considerable challenge due to the intricate nature of instructions and the wide variety of edits. To tackle this problem, one urgent task in this domain is the development of a robust evaluation framework that can precisely gauge the quality of editing outcomes and offer valuable benchmarks to guide future improvements. To address this challenge, we present a comprehensive evaluation benchmark named I2EBench2.0, designed for single-round and multi-round assessment of IIE models. I2EBench2.0 has four key features: 1) Evaluation Across Single and Multi-rounds: I2EBench2.0 simultaneously evaluates both single-round and multi-round instruction-based edits, assessing the precision and consistency of the edits. 2) Extensive Evaluation Criteria: I2EBench2.0 encompasses a broad range of criteria, evaluating both high-level and low-level aspects of each IIE model. Specifically, it incorporates 16 dimensions for single-round evaluations and 7 for multi-round evaluations. 3) Alignment with Human Judgment: To ensure our benchmark aligns with human evaluation, we conducted a comprehensive user study for each criterion. 4) Research-driven Insights: By analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of current IIE models across all 16 single-round and 7 multi-round dimensions, we provide critical insights aimed at directing future research in this area. We tested eight recently developed IIE models using I2EBench2.0 and derived academic insights through meticulous comparison and analysis. The related code, dataset, and images generated by all IIE models are available on GitHub: https://github.com/cocoshe/I2EBench.
Yiwei Ma, Ke Ye, Weihuang Lin +4
Key Laboratory of Multimedia Trusted Perception and Efficient Computing, Ministry of Education of China, Xiamen University, 361005, Fujian, P.R. China. · National University of Singapore, 119077, Singapore.
Significant progress has been made in the field of Instruction-based Image Editing Models (IIEMs). However, while these models demonstrate plausible adherence to instructions and strong reasoning ability on current benchmarks, their ability to edit small objects remains underexplored, despite its importance for precise local editing and refining details in both real and generated images. In this paper, we introduce DeepLookEditBench (DLEBench), the first benchmark dedicated to assessing the abilities of IIEMs in editing small-scale objects. Specifically, we construct a challenging testbed comprising 1889 samples across seven instruction types. In these samples, target objects occupy only 1%-10% of the image area, covering complex scenarios such as partial occlusion and multi-object editing. To ensure robust evaluation on this benchmark, we propose an evaluation protocol with refined score rubrics to minimize subjectivity and ambiguity in two criteria: Instruction Following and Visual Consistency. This protocol also introduces a dual-mode evaluation framework (Tool-driven and Oracle-guided Modes) addressing the misalignment between LMM-as-a-Judge and human judgements on DLEBench. Empirical results on 10 IIEMs reveal significant performance gaps in small-scale object editing, highlighting the need for specialized benchmarks to advance this ability.
Shibo Hong, Boxian Ai, Jun Kuang +5
College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University · Meituan Group