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.
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.