Complex image editing requires faithful task interpretation and accurate execution, but a failed edit does not reveal which responsibility failed. We present DuplexBridge, which uses a unified model's own understanding capability to enhance prompts for its own generation capability, without an external understanding module. A source-grounded bridge specifies targets, final-state changes, and preservation constraints. Understanding is supervised on fidelity to the original request without observing the generated image; generation is supervised on execution of the condition it actually receives. Reciprocal trust checks selectively admit global task feedback to each role while retaining independently valid local supervision. We introduce CE-Bench, a 1,200-task benchmark measuring joint satisfaction of task-derived change and preservation requirements. Across three model configurations, the full system improves complete compliance over direct editors by 21.75-25.75 percentage points, with gains also observed on KRIS-Bench, RISEBench, ImgEdit, and GEdit-Bench. From a common supervised Wan-Image initialization, gated joint training reaches 77.08% complete compliance, compared with 70.92% without gates and 75.00% when generation-local supervision instead checks the original task with both gates retained. These results support distinct local responsibilities and selective shared feedback for joint understanding-generation adaptation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: DuplexBridge overview. (a) Task failures with different local responsibilities. (b) Native U–G communication and three distinct checks. (c) CE-Bench coverage and full-system CCR gains, including PE, SFT, and RL. Primary sectors encode 300/240/240/240/180 tasks; outer subdivisions illustrate capabilities rather than subtype frequencies.
Figure 2: From understanding to a checkable bridge. U resolves the clock task and separates the editable analog clock from protected digital and scene content. Only the public condition enters G and the execution compiler; change and invariant checks use that same condition.
Figure 3: Bidirectional partner-gated feedback. Execution trust gates U-global; prompt trust gates G-global. Local feedback retains independent validity masks. The diagram abbreviates eUglob,eGglob as eU,eG and local rewards as rUloc,rGloc . The routing matrix assumes usable judgments. Yr is a baseline edit, distinct from task-provided reference images.
Primary category
N
Secondary categories
A. Source-Grounded
300
A1 Instance / Ordinal Grounding; A2 Spatial / Relational Grounding; A3 Attribute-Conditioned Selection; A4 Part / Region Grounding.
Table 1: CE-Bench taxonomy. The five primary categories are mutually exclusive; the secondary categories describe capability coverage.
Model
A
B
C
D
E
AC ↑
Pres. ↑
CCR ↑
Commercial Models
GPT-Image-1.5
83.00
78.33
72.92
82.50
68.89
93.47
94.12
77.83
Gemini-3-pro-image-preview
82.33
77.08
81.67
84.17
72.78
94.08
93.87
80.08
Seedream 4.5
80.33
77.50
62.92
72.50
58.89
91.36
94.43
71.50
Gemini-2.5-Flash-Image
73.00
69.58
64.17
70.83
59.44
89.67
90.72
68.08
Generation-only Editors
Table 2: CE-Bench comparison. A–E are category CCR ( table 1 ); scores are percentages. Full systems include native PE, structured SFT, and gated RL. Dark/light pink marks the best/second-best values within each model group, including ties.
Method
KRIS ↑
RISE ↑
ImgEdit ↑
GEdit EN ↑
PromptEnhancerV2
71.54
18.90
4.18
7.59
DARS
80.72
27.50
4.39
7.86
BAGEL
56.21
5.80
3.45
6.40
+ DuplexBridge
76.48
26.11
4.04
7.41
Qwen-2511
64.42
17.50
4.36
6.97
+ DuplexBridge
82.16
31.11
4.43
7.89
Table 3: Public editing benchmarks. Higher is better; metric scales follow section 5 . Dark/light pink marks the best/second-best value per column among displayed systems.
Method
Temporal
Causal
Spatial
Logical
Overall
BAGEL (B0)
14.12
23.33
23.00
5.88
16.94
BAGEL + DuplexBridge
24.71
33.33
31.00
14.12
26.11
Qwen-2511 (B0)
21.18
26.67
29.00
9.41
21.94
Qwen-2511 + DuplexBridge
31.76
38.89
34.00
18.82
31.11
Wan-Image-7B (B0)
16.47
23.33
24.00
7.06
18.06
Wan-Image-7B + DuplexBridge
29.41
35.56
34.00
16.47
29.17
Table 4: Native UMM configurations on RISEBench-360. Qwen-2511 denotes Qwen-Image-Edit-2511. Overall is task-weighted across 85 temporal, 90 causal, 100 spatial, and 85 logical items. Dark/light pink mark the best/second-best value in each column, including ties.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on CE-Bench. Rows cover sign translation, image-grounded question answering, geometric reasoning, spatially specified slicing, and composition from multiple references. The geometry example requires an answer within the existing diagram; the final row combines entity placement with preservation of the base scene.
Model
A
B
C
D
E
AC
Pres.
CCR
BAGEL (B0)
68.67
49.58
47.92
62.92
47.78
83.91
88.63
56.42
Qwen-2511 (B0)
73.00
61.25
55.00
64.58
51.11
86.62
90.14
62.08
Wan-Image-7B (B0)
70.00
57.92
52.50
62.08
49.44
85.28
89.21
59.42
Table 5: Supervised initialization controls. B0 uses native PE and structured SFT, before RL. A–E follow table 1 ; public metrics follow section 5.4 . Dark/light pink mark the best/second-best values, including ties.
Interface
CE AC
CE CCR
Fact-matched prose
84.38
57.00
Flat key-value
84.16
56.67
Flat JSON
84.55
57.42
Grouped key-value
85.09
59.00
CE-v1 grouped JSON
85.28
59.42
CE-v1 without redundant goal
85.17
59.17
Table 6: Wan-Image interface ablations at SFT. Rows compare prose, flat and grouped structures, and CE-v1 variants without the redundant goal or with shuffled fields. AC and CCR are percentages.
Construction
Fidelity
Recall
Dup.
Human agr.
Retrained CCR
Same-contract prose rubric
95.11
88.73
4.28
87.14
74.92
Same-contract atomic reconstruction
95.46
89.12
3.17
87.36
75.58
Compiled execution checks
98.21
91.68
0.73
87.92
77.08
Table 7: Wan-Image execution-check construction. Fidelity, task recall, and duplicates use all rubric attempts. Human agreement uses an adjudicated content-matched subset. The final column reports CCR after retraining with each construction method.
Variant
U/G RL
CE AC
CE CCR
Pres.
KRIS
RISE
ImgEdit
GEdit EN
Direct, no PE
–/–
82.70
53.83
88.47
60.84
13.06
4.09
6.88
Native PE
–/–
83.86
56.67
88.92
63.41
15.83
4.11
6.97
B0 : matched SFT
–/–
85.28
59.42
89.21
66.82
18.06
4.16
7.09
U-only RL
✓ /–
87.96
66.67
88.74
73.28
24.44
4.17
7.21
G-only RL
–/ ✓
88.61
67.50
92.28
71.94
21.94
4.31
7.52
Dual-role local-only
✓ / ✓
–
68.25
–
–
–
–
–
Table 8: Wan-Image-7B training-direction ablation. All RL variants start at B0 with common supervision and reference access. Native PE omits CE-v1 SFT; U-only and G-only are trained independently. UT/DARS-style rows transplant mechanisms into Wan-Image. Dashes in the local-only row denote unreported metrics. GEdit EN uses Full-set GO .
Condition
CCR ↑
Full minus control
Count-matched random gate
71.33
5.75
Group-structure-matched random gate
72.25
4.83
Original-task G-local source
75.00
2.08
Full: semantic gates + received-condition G-local
77.08
—
Table 9: Additional mechanism endpoints on Wan-Image. CCR is a percentage; the final column gives full minus control (percentage points). Count-matched and group-structure-matched random gates are separate controls. The G-local comparison changes the reference for local supervision from the original task to the received condition. These endpoints compare training variants.
Gate
CE CCR
KRIS
RISE
Neither global gate
70.92
76.27
26.11
Prompt trust only
74.17
78.62
28.06
Execution trust only
73.33
78.14
27.50
Both global gates
77.08
80.13
29.17
Count-matched random
71.33
76.48
26.11
Soft semantic weighting
76.33
79.76
28.89
Table 10: Wan-Image global-reward gate ablations. The first four rows vary the two semantic trust decisions, with local supervision and reward-validity conditions retained. Oracle gates use extra annotations.
Interface
Ungated
Gated
Flat
67.42
70.75
Structured
70.92
77.08
Interaction: +2.83 points
Table 11: Structure × global gating on Wan-Image. CE CCR (%) with matched task facts, local checks, initialization, data, and training budget.
Gate
G-global cov.
Wrong / G-global
U-global cov.
Unexec. / U-global
Neither semantic gate
93.60
18.59
91.40
27.41
Prompt trust only
71.20
2.90
91.40
27.41
Execution trust only
93.60
18.59
64.80
4.60
Both trust gates
71.20
2.90
64.80
4.60
Count-matched random
71.20
18.12
64.80
27.11
Table 12: Global-feedback selection on a frozen pool of 6,000 rollouts. Coverage uses all rollouts; error rates use the corresponding global-eligible subset. Wrong-prompt and unexecuted-prompt labels combine external-VLM judgments and human annotation.
Pair
CE CCR
KRIS
RISE
U0 G0
59.42
66.82
18.06
Ut G0
65.92
72.48
22.22
U0 Gt
68.83
73.94
24.17
Ut Gt
77.08
80.13
29.17
Table 13: Wan-Image checkpoint cross-pairing. U0/G0 are the common B0 initialization; Ut/Gt are the adapted checkpoints from the same full training run.
Figure 5: Requirement load and joint change–preservation outcomes. (a) CCR for full and ungated on the same 1,200 public tasks, grouped by their observed total number K of change and preservation requirements; each stratum’s task count is shown below its tick. (b) Counts and percentages of the same tasks in the four joint states (ungated above, full below), derived from task-level change and invariant failure counts. C=1 means every requested change passes, and P=1 means every preservation requirement passes; P is an all-pass indicator, distinct from the mean preservation fraction reported as Pres. The fraction of tasks in the C=P=1 state equals CCR.
K
N
U CCR
F CCR
Δ
95% interval
U AC
F AC
3
300
85.00
90.33
+5.33
[+2.33, +8.33]
95.00
96.78
5
360
74.44
80.83
+6.39
[+3.33, +9.44]
89.78
92.33
7
360
66.39
74.44
+8.06
[+4.72, +11.39]
88.53
92.58
9
180
49.44
52.78
+3.33
[-0.56, +7.22]
83.15
84.26
All
1200
70.92
77.08
+6.17
[+4.50, +7.83]
89.72
92.31
Table 14: Complete and average compliance by public requirement load. U/F denote ungated/full Wan-Image; CCR and AC are percentages. Δ is full minus ungated CCR in points, calculated before rounding. Pointwise paired bootstrap intervals follow the protocol in section 6.7 .
RM
HPA ↑
Hard ↑
NLL ↓
Brier ↓
SwapErr ↓
A/B gap ↓
Latency ↓
M0: Base direct
77.6
66.5
0.489
0.158
0.058
2.2
1.0×
M1: Explicit think
82.3
75.8
0.377
0.120
0.045
1.3
6.0×
M2: Preference SFT
78.9
69.2
0.439
0.142
0.051
1.0
1.0×
M3: Decision–reason
79.9
71.2
0.409
0.133
0.046
0.8
1.0×
M4: Hard KD
80.4
72.3
0.501
0.154
0.062
1.6
1.0×
M5: Soft KD
81.7
74.8
0.385
0.122
0.041
0.6
1.0×
Table 15: Reward-model judgment quality and cost. HPA/Hard are accuracies (%); A/B gap is in percentage points. NLL/Brier/SwapErr follow equation 17 . Latency is one end-to-end pairwise call relative to M0; only M1 reasons online.
Category
M0
M1
M4
M5
Wrong target or ordinal
70.0
78.3
75.8
78.3
Near-miss text
60.0
72.5
68.3
70.8
Preservation damage
69.2
76.7
73.3
78.3
Coupled-edit omission
61.7
73.3
68.3
70.8
Visually good, task wrong
71.7
78.3
75.8
75.8
Reported overall
66.5
75.8
72.3
74.8
Table 16: Difficult-pair accuracy (%). Scores are shown for five error categories and the reported overall.
RM
MMRB2 edit pair acc. ↑
EditReward K=2↑
EditReward K=3↑
EditReward K=4↑
M0
66.2
57.2
35.9
10.8
M1
71.8
61.8
44.9
16.6
M2
67.1
58.3
37.8
11.9
M3
68.6
59.6
40.4
13.3
M4
69.3
60.1
41.5
13.8
M5
70.6
61.0
43.5
15.8
Table 17: External RM evaluation. MMRB2 editing pair accuracy and EditReward-Bench K=2,3,4 ranking scores are reported separately (%).
ID / RM
Gates
CCR ↑
AC ↑
Pres. ↑
D0 / M0
Off
69.08
88.91
91.35
D1 / M0
On
74.25
91.28
93.12
D2 / M5
Off
70.92
89.72
91.82
D3 / M5
On
77.08
92.31
93.86
D4 / M1
On
77.50
92.42
93.73
Table 18: Reward × gate comparisons on Wan-Image. D0–D3 form the 2×2 comparison; D4 uses explicit thinking. D0–D4 use equal update steps and rollout budgets. All metrics are percentages.
Method
N
Human CCR
Auto. CCR
Bias
Agree.
FA
FR
Human CCR bounds
Direct
195
53.33
54.36
+1.03
88.72
13.19
9.62
[52.0, 54.5]
Ungated
196
69.39
70.92
+1.53
91.33
16.67
5.15
[68.0, 70.0]
Full
197
76.14
76.65
+0.51
93.40
14.89
4.00
[75.0, 76.5]
Table 19: Final-output human evaluation on 200 CE-Bench tasks. N is the number of human-decidable outputs per method. CCR, agreement, false acceptance (FA), and false rejection (FR) are percentages; bias is automatic minus human CCR in points. FA conditions on human failures and FR on human successes. Identification bounds assign unresolved labels to failure or success over all 200 tasks.
Quantity
Estimate
95% interval
Human gain ΔH
+6.70
[+1.03, +12.37]
Automatic gain ΔA
+6.19
[+1.55, +10.82]
Gain bias ΔA−ΔH
-0.52
[-3.61, +2.58]
Table 20: Full versus ungated on 194 common tasks. Point estimates and 95% percentile intervals are in percentage points. Intervals use 50,000 paired task bootstrap resamples within categories, preserving the observed category counts of this common decidable set.
Figure 6: Human preferences for full versus ungated. Each dimension has 197 decidable task pairs and three unresolved pairs out of 200. Wins, ties, and losses retain their separate categories; interval estimates for net preference appear in table 21 .
Full comparison
Dimension
W/T/L
Unres.
Net
95% interval
vs. ungated
Instruction
65/102/30
3
+17.77
[+8.63, +26.90]
vs. ungated
Preservation
38/122/37
3
+0.51
[-8.12, +9.14]
vs. ungated
Quality
44/105/48
3
-2.03
[-11.68, +7.11]
vs. direct
Instruction
89/83/25
3
+32.49
[+22.84, +42.13]
vs. direct
Preservation
70/94/33
3
+18.78
[+9.14, +28.43]
vs. direct
Quality
61/87/48
4
+6.63
[-3.57, +16.84]
Table 21: Human preference for full. W/T/L are wins/ties/losses; Unres. counts unresolved judgments out of 200 task pairs per comparison. Net preference is 100(W-L)/(W+T+L), in points. The 95% intervals use category-stratified task bootstrap; ties remain in the denominator.
Model
GenEval2 AM ↑
GenEval2 GM ↑
R2I ×100↑
WISE-V ×100↑
DPG ↑
BAGEL + native CoT
70.9
23.1
48.0
62.8
85.1
BAGEL + DuplexBridge-T2I
77.8
31.5
56.0
70.5
86.8
Qwen-Image
80.8
33.8
52.0
51.0
88.3
Qwen-Image + DuplexBridge-T2I
85.0
42.0
61.0
66.0
89.7
Wan-Image-7B
79.4
32.2
51.0
54.0
87.7
Wan-Image-7B + DuplexBridge-T2I
84.2
40.6
59.5
64.5
89.3
Table 22: Text-to-image adaptation after retraining. Metrics follow section 6.10 ; dark/light pink mark the best/second-best values across all six systems, including ties.
Figure 9: Additional CE-Bench showcase. Arrows indicate the transition from source images to edited outputs; auxiliary images provide visual references for flower replacement and dog insertion. Examples include sign-text replacement and translation, localized color changes, a traffic-light state change, and object appearance edits. The paired images show the edited regions alongside the surrounding scene.
Currently, enhancing Unified Multimodal Models (UMMs) with image understanding, generation, and editing capabilities mainly relies on mixed multi-task training. Due to inherent task conflicts, such strategy requires complex multi-stage pipelines, massive data mixing, and balancing tricks, merely resulting in a performance trade-off rather than true mutual reinforcement. To break this paradigm, we propose Uni-Edit, an intelligent image editing task that serves as the first general task for UMM tuning. Unlike complex mixed pipelines, Uni-Edit improves performance across all three abilities at once using only one task, one training stage, and one dataset. Specifically, we first identify image editing as an inherently ideal general task, as it naturally demands both visual understanding and generation. However, existing editing data relies on simplistic instructions that severely underutilize a model's understanding capacity. To address this, we introduce the first automated and scalable data synthesis pipeline for intelligent editing, transforming diverse VQA data into complex and effective editing instructions with embedded questions and nested logic. This yields Uni-Edit-148k, pairing diverse reasoning-intensive instructions with high-quality edited images. Extensive experiments on BAGEL and Janus-Pro demonstrate that tuning solely on Uni-Edit achieves comprehensive enhancements across all three capabilities without any auxiliary operations.
Unified multimodal models (UMMs) aim to integrate visual understanding and generation within a single architecture, but architectural unification alone does not ensure semantic consistency. A model may describe the intended target correctly while generating an inconsistent edit. This exposes an understanding-generation alignment gap: linguistic and visual outputs live in different spaces, yet should be governed by the same target semantics. We study this gap in image editing, where an instruction defines a target state that can be both described and visually realized. Given a source image and an edit instruction, we compare a UMM's target caption with its edited image to test whether the two outputs converge on the same result. Our analysis shows that existing UMMs remain weakly aligned, especially for fine-grained entities, attributes, spatial relations, and local details, indicating that semantic unification is not achieved by architecture alone. To bridge this gap, we propose STBridge, a shared-target alignment framework that connects understanding and generation through a common target state. Here the target caption expresses the desired visual result, while the edited image realizes it visually, replacing separate task-specific paths with a shared information flow from target expression to target realization. STBridge follows an align-then-optimize strategy: supervised fine-tuning first establishes the shared-target channel, and sequential reinforcement learning further refines target-centered coordination. Across visual understanding, image generation, and image editing benchmarks, STBridge consistently improves over the initialization model. Alignment analysis confirms that STBridge narrows the gap between what the model describes and what it generates, demonstrating shared-target alignment as an effective post-training strategy for bridging understanding and generation in UMMs.
Editing images via instruction provides a natural way to generate interactive content, but it is a big challenge due to the higher requirement of scene understanding and generation. Prior work utilizes a chain of large language models, object segmentation models, and editing models for this task. However, the understanding models provide only a single modality ability, restricting the editing quality. We aim to bridge understanding and generation via a new multi-modality model that provides the intelligent abilities to instruction-based image editing models for more complex cases. To achieve this goal, we individually separate the instruction editing task with the multi-modality chain of thought prompts, i.e., Chain-of-Thought (CoT) planning, editing region reasoning, and editing. For Chain-of-Thought planning, the large language model could reason the appropriate sub-prompts considering the instruction provided and the ability of the editing network. For editing region reasoning, we train an instruction-based editing region generation network with a multi-modal large language model. Finally, a hint-guided instruction-based editing network is proposed for editing image generations based on the sizeable text-to-image diffusion model to accept the hints for generation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method has competitive editing abilities on complex real-world images.