Recent advances in flow-based generative models have enabled training-free, text-guided image editing by inverting an image into its latent noise and regenerating it under a new target conditional guidance. However, existing methods struggle to preserve source fidelity: higher-order solvers incur additional model inferences, truncated inversion constrains editability, and feature injection methods lack architectural transferability. To address these limitations, we propose SteerFlow, a model-agnostic editing framework with strong theoretical guarantees on source fidelity. In the forward process, we introduce an Amortized Fixed-Point Solver that implicitly straightens the forward trajectory by enforcing velocity consistency across consecutive timesteps, yielding a high-fidelity inverted latent. In the backward process, we introduce Trajectory Interpolation, which adaptively blends target-editing and source-reconstruction velocities to keep the editing trajectory anchored to the source. To further improve background preservation, we introduce an Adaptive Masking mechanism that spatially constrains the editing signal with concept-guided segmentation and source-target velocity differences. Extensive experiments on FLUX.1-dev and Stable Diffusion 3.5 Medium demonstrate that SteerFlow consistently achieves better editing quality than existing methods. Finally, we show that SteerFlow extends naturally to a complex multi-turn editing paradigm without accumulating drift.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of SteerFlow and existing inversion-based methods. (a) Unconstrained generation causes over-editing with loss of source structure. (b) Prior approaches, represented by UniEdit [ 14 ] , either rely on computationally expensive second-order solvers, or heuristic feature injection/truncated inversion that often suffers from under-editing (as shown by the unchanged source subject) and limited architectural transferability. (c) In contrast, SteerFlow presents a principled, architecture-agnostic editing framework that achieves high source-fidelity and faithful target alignment.
Figure 2: SteerFlow Editing Framework. Note that adaptive masking is optional.
Figure 3: An illustration of the AFP Solver with increasing iterations.
Figure 4: Comparison of masking strategies. No masking causes editing leakage, while using only the SAM3 mask restricts editability. SteerFlow Adaptive Mask dynamically expands the SAM3 mask to accommodate appropriate structural changes.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of editing baselines and SteerFlow for various editing tasks on FLUX.1-dev model.
Method
NFE ↓
Rank ↓
Source Preservation
Target Alignment
Image Quality
DinoDist ↓
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
CLIP ↑
ImgRew ↑
HPSv2 ↑
AS ↑
FLUX.1-dev
Inversion-Free Methods
FlowEdit [ 17 ]
48
3.62
2.61
10.50
84.04
22.37
25.27
0.654
28.78
6.74
Inversion-Based Methods
ODE Inv
30
4.50
10.38
30.64
64.98
14.52
26.67
1.275
31.25
6.98
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on PIE-Bench using FLUX.1-dev and SD3.5-Medium. Bold indicates best, underline second best. DinoDist, LPIPS, SSIM, and HPSv2 are scaled ×102 for readability. For SD3.5, UniEdit uses N=30 steps (default is 15) to be comparable to other methods. SteerFlow uses K=1 optimization steps.
Model
Method
Rank ↓
Conditional Reconstruction
Unconditional Reconstruction
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
MSE ↓
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
MSE ↓
FLUX.1-dev ( N=15 )
ODE Inv
5.00
15.32
41.11
55.97
3.52
15.65
48.04
48.11
3.08
RF-Solver [ 30 ]
3.38
19.32
20.80
73.34
2.13
19.39
21.47
72.01
1.80
FireFlow [ 8 ]
1.62
20.45
17.93
75.83
1.67
20.26
19.65
74.12
1.58
UniEdit [ 14 ]
3.25
19.51
18.66
76.12
3.27
18.98
21.21
73.12
2.06
SteerFlow
1.75
20.26
15.99
78.83
2.60
19.63
17.70
76.84
1.91
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on image reconstruction. Bold indicates the best performance, and underline indicates the second best. LPIPS, SSIM, and MSE are scaled ×102 for readability. SteerFlow uses K=8 optimization steps.
Figure 6: Multi-turn image editing with SteerFlow. Each turn applies one of three edit operations: object replacement, attribute modification, object addition.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Additional SteerFlow results on FLUX.1-dev model.
Figure 8: Additional SteerFlow results on Stable Diffusion 3.5-Medium model.
Figure 9: Additional SteerFlow results on Multi-Turn editing. First row is Flux.1-dev, second row is Stable Diffusion 3.5-Medium. For both models, SteerFlow enables consistent multi-turn editing and complex multi-object editing (in the last row).
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of baseline editing methods and SteerFlow on Stable Diffusion 3.5-Medium. SteerFlow demonstrates strong source preservation and faithful target prompt alignment. Previous editing baselines struggle with pose and structural change (in the third and fourth rows). ODE Inversion suffers from over-editing.
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison on inversion & reconstruction performance of baselines and SteerFlow.
Figure 12: Comparision of SteerFlow multi-turn editing and single-turn editing. First row: single-turn editing. Second row: multi-turn editing.
Figure 13: Quantitative comparison of Standard Fixed-Point solver (first row) and AFP solver (second row) with increasing K .
Figure 14: Qualitative comparison of Standard Fixed-Point solver (first row) and AFP solver (second row) with increasing K .
Figure 15: Evaluation of AFP solver on editing performance with increasing K .
Figure 16: Impact of varying decay rate γ on editing performance.
Figure 17: Impact of varying CFG weight w on editing performance.
Figure 18: Illustrations of varying decay rate γ on editability.
Variant
DinoDist ↓
LPIPS ↓
CLIP ↑
ImgRew ↑
Fixed α=0.1
0.05
2.98
21.49
-0.64
Fixed α=0.5
0.85
10.90
23.91
0.12
Fixed α=0.9
7.76
40.31
26.57
1.08
Only time-decaying
3.10
24.55
25.32
0.70
Only Cossim
4.99
30.97
26.50
1.08
time-decaying + Cossim
2.20
19.87
25.12
0.60
Appendix
Table 3: SteerFlow editing performance with different α -schedulers
Method
Model
Hyperparameters
timesteps N
target CFG w
start step
injection steps
stop step
forward guidance γ
backward guidance η
ODE-Inversion
SD3.5
50
5.5
0/50
-
-
-
-
FLUX
28
3.5
0/28
-
-
-
-
RF-Inversion
FLUX
28
3.5
0/28
-
7/28
0.5
0.9
RF-Solver
FLUX
15
2.0
0/15
2
-
-
-
FireFlow
FLUX
15
2.0
0/15
2
-
-
-
Appendix
Table 4: Experiment settings of inversion-based baselines
Method
Model
Hyperparameters
timesteps N
source CFG ws
target CFG wt
start step
correction weight ζ
FlowEdit
SD3.5
50
1.5
5.5
17/50
-
FLUX
28
5.5
13.5
4/28
-
FlowAlign
SD3.5
33
-
13.5*
0/50
0.01
Appendix
Table 5: Experiment settings of inversion-free baselines
Method
Model
Hyperparameters
timesteps N
decay rate γ
CFG w
AFP iterations K
SteerFlow
SD3.5
30
5.5
3.5
1
FLUX
15
4.5
6.5
1
Appendix
Table 6: Experiment settings of SteerFlow
quantile ratio q
sigmoid temperature τ
kernel size k
0.95
15
5
Appendix
Table 7: SteerFlow Adaptive Mask setting
Figure 19: A sample result of inversion-based editing with a perfect latent that is used for the source image.
Editing images with pre-trained text-to-image flow models typically requires carefully balancing target alignment with the desired prompt and source consistency with the original image. Existing approaches either rely on inversion-based pipelines or heuristic source-to-target trajectory constructions, which often depend on architecture-specific designs or are sensitive to hyperparameters. In this paper, we propose h-Flow, a training-free and theoretically grounded flow-based editing framework. Inspired by Doob's h-Transform, we reformulate image editing as conditional generation under multiple terminal events corresponding to source consistency and target alignment. We first extend the classical h-Transform from SDE-based models to the deterministic RF framework by constructing an equivalent SDE with identical marginals. Within this formulation, we design dedicated h-functions for source consistency and target alignment, yielding closed-form reconstruction guidance and velocity-based semantic editing signals. We further introduce a velocity orthogonal decomposition to decouple reconstruction and editing directions, enabling a controllable trade-off between the two objectives. Extensive experiments demonstrate that h-Flow achieves effective, robust, and flexible editing across diverse scenarios. The code will be released soon.
Zehui Guo, Zhen Wang, Junwei Shu +3
East China Normal University, Shanghai, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China
With recent advancements in large-scale pre-trained text-to-image (T2I) models, training-free image editing methods have demonstrated remarkable success. Typically, these methods involve adding noise to a clean image via an inversion process, followed by separate denoising steps for the reconstruction and editing paths during the forward process. However, since the reconstruction path is approximated using noisy latents from mismatched timesteps, existing methods inevitably suffer from accumulated drift, which fundamentally limits reconstruction fidelity. To address this challenge, we systematically analyze the inversion process within the flow transformer and propose DirectEdit, a simple yet effective editing method that eliminates the inherent reconstruction error without introducing additional neural function evaluations (NFEs). Unlike most prior works that attempt to rectify the inversion path, DirectEdit focuses on directly aligning the forward paths, enabling precise reconstruction and reliable feature sharing. Furthermore, we introduce a preservation mechanism based on attention feature injection and multi-branch mask-guided noise blending, which effectively balances fidelity and editability. Extensive experiments across diverse scenarios demonstrate that DirectEdit achieves efficient and accurate image editing, delivering superior performance that outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Code and examples are available at https://desongyang.github.io/Directedit.
Desong Yang, Mang Ye
National Engineering Research Center for Multimedia Software, School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Flow-based image editing (FlowEdit) enables inversion-free semantic changes through the difference between source and target velocities. In this paper, we observe that FlowEdit's default classifier-free guidance (CFG) configuration, with asymmetric source and target scales, causes substantial background leakage. Matching these guidance scales, for example by removing CFG, improves edit-relevant localization but severely degrades editability. To get the best of both worlds, we propose DecFlowEdit, which decouples the optimal guidance scales for localization and for editing in flow-based generative models. In particular, DecFlowEdit first extracts an edit-relevant prior by temporally aggregating velocity differences evaluated without CFG, and then uses this prior to reweight the original updates under default CFG. Our method remains training-free and inversion-free, requiring neither external spatial masks nor attention manipulation. Experiments on PIE-Bench across FLUX, SD3, and SD3.5 show that DecFlowEdit improves background preservation, reducing structure distance by approximately 61 to 73 percent and background LPIPS by 68 to 80 percent relative to FlowEdit at comparable editing fidelity.
Zheyuan Zhan, Can Wang, Jiawei Chen +4
Zhejiang University · University at Buffalo · University of California, Berkeley