We introduce LensErase, a general-purpose mask-based Erase Anything foundation model designed to cover a broad spectrum of real-world erase scenarios. LensErase supports diverse objects, visual text, watermarks, associated visual effects, multiple-object removal, and a wide range of object scales, aspect ratios, and image resolutions. First, to enable such broad coverage, we construct LensErase-100M, a large-scale dataset containing 101.07 million paired source-mask-target examples spanning diverse erase scenarios. Second, we pretrain LensErase from the text-to-image model Lens, adapting its strong generative prior to mask-based erasing. To efficiently incorporate the source image and erase mask, we propose Mask-Aware RoPE, a 3D rotary positional encoding that directly injects mask information into the source-image tokens without introducing a separate mask token sequence. Finally, we refine the model through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with contract-guided, region-aware rewards, and apply TraceFusion at inference to preserve high-fidelity content outside the effective edit region. Across six public benchmarks and the proposed LensErase-Bench, LensErase achieves substantial improvements under both reference-based objective metrics and reference-free VLM evaluation. We hope LensErase can serve as a foundational model for erase-related applications and systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: LensErase across diverse removal scenarios. Each pair shows a source image with highlighted removal targets and the corresponding LensErase result. Examples cover general objects, visual text, watermarks, multiple objects, coupled effects, and high-fidelity inpainting.
Figure 2: Left : Distribution of mask area ratios. Right : Distribution of mask counts.
Figure 3: Architecture of LensErase. LensErase follows a two-branch MMDiT architecture, where the image branch processes the noisy target latent and the condition branch processes the source latent. The proposed Mask-Aware RoPE incorporates the pooled binary mask into the condition branch by encoding masked and unmasked source regions along an additional modality dimension.
Method
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
CMMD ↓
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
DISTS ↓
CLIP-I ↑
DINO ↑
OBER-Test [ 75 ]
ObjectClear [ 75 ]
33.05
19.16
0.0132
0.0338
0.9353
0.0217
0.9894
0.9839
OSOR [ 78 ]
30.14
27.82
0.0674
0.0524
0.8748
0.0377
0.9827
0.9693
OmniPaint [ 71 ]
28.79
23.68
0.0829
0.0549
0.8575
0.0427
0.9836
0.9803
LensErase
34.96
16.97
0.0073
0.0256
0.9543
0.0176
0.9930
0.9839
RORD-Val-343 [ 50 ]
Table 1: Comparison with state-of-the-art object removal methods on six public benchmarks. For each benchmark, we report the three baselines with the lowest mean rank across the eight metrics together with LensErase . Complete results for all 12 baselines are provided in Tables 10 - 15 of the Appendix. Cell backgrounds mark the best , second-best , and third-best scores among these four methods.
Method
Removal ↑
Inpainting ↑
Preservation ↑
Cleanliness ↑
Overall ↑
HiFi Removal (%) ↑
OSOR [ 78 ]
73.85
60.45
75.55
73.55
71.45
32.60
OmniPaint [ 71 ]
69.20
66.15
80.20
83.20
73.59
42.80
ObjectClear [ 75 ]
73.95
61.45
73.80
75.20
71.67
28.40
GeoRemover [ 80 ]
54.30
49.85
77.05
78.00
62.70
25.60
OmniEraser [ 62 ]
55.65
47.95
77.55
57.65
58.89
22.60
RORem-mixed [ 31 ]
73.95
59.70
74.05
67.10
69.75
27.40
Table 2: Comparison on LensErase-Bench. We report the six representative baselines together with LensErase. Complete results for all 12 baselines are provided in Table 16 of the Appendix.
LensErase-Bench
Public Benchmarks
Model
Removal ↑
Inpainting ↑
Preservation ↑
Cleanliness ↑
Overall ↑
HiFi Removal ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Pre-Training
82.35
84.65
91.05
92.15
86.51
65.80
28.03
0.0855
+SFT
88.65
87.15
92.05
93.05
89.91
70.80
28.14
0.0826
+RL
94.95
92.65
93.35
96.15
94.41
81.60
28.70
0.0816
+TraceFusion
95.15
92.40
96.35
97.05
95.22
82.80
30.82
0.0684
Table 3: Stage-wise ablation of LensErase. We report performance after pre-training, SFT, RL, and TraceFusion. Results on LensErase-Bench are shown with all evaluation metrics, while results on public benchmarks report the average PSNR and LPIPS across the six public benchmarks.
LensErase-Bench
Public Benchmarks
Model
Removal ↑
Inpainting ↑
Preservation ↑
Cleanliness ↑
Overall ↑
HiFi Removal ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Mask-Aware RoPE
82.35
84.65
91.05
92.15
86.51
65.80
28.03
0.0855
Channel Concat
81.50
84.55
82.90
91.15
84.32
58.80
27.84
0.0869
Token Concat
77.50
76.85
84.90
87.15
80.78
51.40
27.41
0.0965
Table 4: Comparison of mask injection strategies. Mask-Aware RoPE is compared with channel- and token-concatenation baselines, all evaluated at the pre-training stage. Both baselines obtain mask features via pixel unshuffle of 16×16 patches. Channel Concat concatenates source and mask features along channels and fuses them with an MLP before condition projection. Token Concat places source tokens alongside noisy tokens in the image branch and projects mask features to the condition branch. Both use positional indices independent of mask values.
Appendix figures & tables31 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Data composition across training stages. Dataset sizes and category counts for pretraining, SFT, and RL. Bands connect shared categories across stages.
Domain
Mask-area bins (%)
Cases per bin
General
<1,[1,5),[5,15),[15,30),≥30
40 / 40 / 40 / 40 / 40
Poster
<5,[5,15),≥15
35 / 33 / 32
Watermark
<1,[1,5),[5,15),≥15
25 / 25 / 25 / 25
Visual Text
<0.5,[0.5,1),[1,2),≥2
25 / 25 / 25 / 25
Appendix
Table 5: Domain-specific mask-area distribution in LensErase-Bench.
Filling difficulty
Selected targets
Domain
0–1
2
3
4
1
2–3
≥4
General
9
50
87
54
100
87
13
Poster
34
25
25
16
93
3
4
Watermark
0
9
64
27
40
16
44
Visual Text
25
45
30
0
63
25
12
Appendix
Table 6: Distribution of filling difficulty and number of selected targets in LensErase-Bench.
Figure 5: Initialization and two-stage pretraining. Both visual branches are initialized from the pretrained Lens image branch. Stage 1 adapts the condition branch while freezing the image-specific backbone. Stage 2 jointly adapts both branches for removal and reconstruction.
LensErase-Bench
Public Benchmarks
Model
Removal ↑
Inpainting ↑
Preservation ↑
Cleanliness ↑
Overall ↑
HiFi Removal ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Mask-Aware RoPE (Stage 2)
82.35
84.65
91.05
92.15
86.51
65.80
28.03
0.0855
Conditioning and initialization
Channel Concat
81.50
84.55
82.90
91.15
84.32
58.80
27.84
0.0869
Token Concat
77.50
76.85
84.90
87.15
80.78
51.40
27.41
0.0965
Text initialization
89.50
1.30
0.05
1.75
36.42
0.00
10.71
0.7420
Appendix
Table 7: Pretraining design ablations. The shared reference uses Mask-Aware RoPE, image-branch initialization, and two-stage freeze–unfreeze training. All rows use raw outputs. LensErase-Bench metrics follow Section 2.3 ; PSNR and LPIPS are equal-weight means over the six public benchmarks.
Figure 6: Contract-guided reward construction for General Data. Source analysis establishes an erase contract shared across rollouts. Each candidate is evaluated against this fixed contract using semantic judgments and pixel fidelity. The five reward components are combined and passed through the removal-aware gate in Equation 6 . The resulting rewards define group advantages for DiffusionNFT.
Component
General Data
Poster / Watermark / Visual Text
General Data criteria
Removal
0.30
0.20
Target body absence (0.35), parts/identity absence (0.30), associated-effect removal (0.35)
Reconstruction
0.15
0.20
Semantic plausibility, structural continuity, and appearance/material consistency
Absence of residual fragments, unwanted additions (objects, duplicates, text, logos, or watermarks), and technical artifacts
Appendix
Table 8: Reward weights before applicability renormalization and removal-aware gating. The last column summarizes the General Data criteria. Poster, Watermark, and Visual Text share component weights, with reference-specific subcriteria described below.
Symbol
Definition
Images, masks, and positional coordinates
Iinput
Source image containing the selected targets.
Ioutput
Paired erase target used for supervised training.
I^output , I^outputTF
Generated image before and after TraceFusion, respectively.
M , mi
Binary selection mask and its max-pooled value for source token i , with 1 denoting a selected region.
hi , wi
Height and width coordinates of token i .
Appendix
Table 9: Principal notation for LensErase.
Method
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
CMMD ↓
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
DISTS ↓
CLIP-I ↑
DINO ↑
SmartEraser [ 25 ]
26.67
94.58
0.4178
0.0762
0.9446
0.0792
0.9393
0.8423
RORem-mixed [ 31 ]
25.93
61.32
0.1832
0.1122
0.8549
0.0836
0.9593
0.9186
EntityErasure [ 79 ]
22.75
82.02
0.2933
0.1330
0.7263
0.1037
0.9376
0.8866
Attentive Eraser [ 55 ]
26.22
59.96
0.2048
0.1123
0.8497
0.0889
0.9605
0.9228
DesignEdit [ 24 ]
26.39
71.25
0.2052
0.1302
0.8585
0.0955
0.9485
0.8997
OmniEraser [ 62 ]
25.52
85.73
0.2131
0.0996
0.9141
0.0896
0.9457
0.8698
Appendix
Table 10: Complete comparison on OBER-Test [ 75 ] .
Method
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
CMMD ↓
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
DISTS ↓
CLIP-I ↑
DINO ↑
SmartEraser [ 25 ]
24.89
35.41
0.1104
0.1658
0.8472
0.0950
0.9644
0.9349
RORem-mixed [ 31 ]
23.16
35.91
0.0983
0.1906
0.6893
0.0990
0.9482
0.9316
EntityErasure [ 79 ]
21.25
50.71
0.2829
0.3340
0.6142
0.1461
0.9400
0.9082
Attentive Eraser [ 55 ]
22.57
39.19
0.0948
0.1743
0.6896
0.0879
0.9501
0.9189
DesignEdit [ 24 ]
23.28
49.55
0.1603
0.1938
0.7268
0.1046
0.9304
0.8837
OmniEraser [ 62 ]
24.46
35.78
0.0426
0.1189
0.8380
0.0690
0.9580
0.9262
Appendix
Table 11: Complete comparison on RORD-Val-343 [ 50 ] .
Method
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
CMMD ↓
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
DISTS ↓
CLIP-I ↑
DINO ↑
SmartEraser [ 25 ]
23.49
151.88
0.4359
0.3308
0.7695
0.1890
0.9339
0.8239
RORem-mixed [ 31 ]
23.51
90.95
0.2044
0.2262
0.7149
0.1175
0.9575
0.9098
EntityErasure [ 79 ]
20.36
161.80
0.3525
0.4287
0.6664
0.2288
0.9116
0.7918
Attentive Eraser [ 55 ]
23.78
80.49
0.1666
0.1941
0.7095
0.0969
0.9646
0.9263
DesignEdit [ 24 ]
23.96
108.46
0.2758
0.2343
0.7200
0.1357
0.9457
0.8676
OmniEraser [ 62 ]
22.33
147.90
0.3822
0.2150
0.7539
0.1285
0.9213
0.7990
Appendix
Table 12: Complete comparison on RemovalBench [ 62 ] .
Object removal must prevent the masked target from reappearing and reconstruct the occluded background with structural and contextual fidelity, rather than merely filling a hole plausibly. Recent dataset-free approaches manipulate the diffusion model's internal self-attention to prevent it from referencing the masked region, yet they fail in two critical ways: (i) they treat the masked region as the sole foreground, misinterpreting non-target objects as background and regenerating them, and (ii) they apply uniform attention constraints without distinguishing diverse background subtypes, leading to textural blurring and structural misalignment. Both failures stem from the absence of explicit background-aware reasoning. We propose EraseLoRA, a dataset-free framework that replaces attention surgery with background-aware reasoning and test-time adaptation. The first stage, Background-aware Foreground Exclusion (BFE), leverages a multimodal large-language model to separate target foreground, non-target foregrounds, and clean background from a single image-mask pair. The second stage, Background-aware Reconstruction with Subtype Aggregation (BRSA), performs test-time optimization that treats inferred background subtypes as complementary pieces, enforcing their consistent integration through reconstruction and alignment objectives without explicit attention intervention. As a model-agnostic plug-in applicable to diverse diffusion backbones, EraseLoRA reconstructs backgrounds at least 23% more faithful to the original scene than previous dataset-free methods while nearly halving unwanted foreground re-generation, and surpasses all dataset-driven approaches in both aspects despite requiring no training data. Code is available at https://shjo-april.github.io/EraseLoRA.
Sanghyun Jo, Donghwan Lee, Eunji Jung +2
OGQ, Seoul, Korea · Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
We present YOEO, an approach for object erasure. Unlike recent diffusion-based methods which struggle to erase target objects without generating unexpected content within the masked regions due to lack of sufficient paired training data and explicit constraint on content generation, our method allows to produce high-quality object erasure results free of unwanted objects or artifacts while faithfully preserving the overall context coherence to the surrounding content. We achieve this goal by training an object erasure diffusion model on unpaired data containing only large-scale real-world images, under the supervision of a sundries detector and a context coherence loss that are built upon an entity segmentation model. To enable more efficient training and inference, a diffusion distillation strategy is employed to train for a few-step erasure diffusion model. Extensive experiments show that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art object erasure methods. Code will be available at https://zyxunh.github.io/YOEO-ProjectPage/.
Yixing Zhu, Qing Zhang, Wenju Xu +1
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, China · Key Laboratory of Machine Intelligence and Advanced Computing, Ministry of Education, China · Amazon
Video object removal frequently struggles to simultaneously eliminate target objects and their associated physical effects (e.g., smoke, reflections, light, and ripples) in out-of-domain scenarios due to complex spatiotemporal ambiguities. While existing methods primarily rely on spatial masks, they often fail to capture weakly correlated effects, and the potential of explicit textual guidance remains underexplored. Furthermore, a fundamental optimization conflict exists in removal models between high-level semantic generalization and precise pixel-level background preservation. To address these challenges, we propose GenEraser, a novel framework for generalized and high-fidelity video object and effect removal. First, we introduce a Multi-Conditional Mixture-of-Experts (MC-MoE) paired with Bipartite Text guidance to fully exploit the multimodal priors of Diffusion Transformers, significantly enhancing the identification of complex effects. Second, a Learnable Deep ``CFG'' Fusion mechanism (LD-CFG) is developed to adaptively balance the relative dominance of mask and textual conditions across diverse scenarios. Finally, we propose a Decoupled Expert Architecture, comprising a Locator and a Preserver, to mitigate the inherent trade-off between semantic generalization and pixel alignment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our GenEraser surpasses recent state-of-the-art approaches, achieving significant quantitative improvements (e.g., 2.16 dB and 1.44 dB on the ROSE Benchmark and VOR-Eval, respectively) while maintaining exceptionally robust generalization in open-world scenarios. https://cyqii.github.io/GenEraser.github.io/
Yuqing Chen, Lin Liu, Haisu Wu +4
Tsinghua University, China · Huawei, China · Southeast University, China +2