Reinforcement learning for instruction-guided image editing requires reward models that provide reliable, accurate, and efficient feedback. Direct scalar prediction compresses multidimensional editing preferences, whereas generative evaluators can expose their judgment through explicit reasoning. However, broad scoring criteria do not specify all instance-dependent editing and preservation constraints, and generating long reasoning trajectories is costly for online optimization. We introduce CheckDistill, a pointwise reward modeling framework that internalizes instruction-adaptive checklists. We decompose each editing condition into atomic, independently verifiable requirements and construct four-dimensional scoring labels together with structured verification evidence. After supervised score initialization, a privileged teacher conditions on checklists, item-level judgments, and dimension-level rationales to supervise the student's own scoring trajectories. A reliability-weighted on-policy self-distillation objective adjusts supervision at score tokens according to agreement between the teacher's expected scores and reference labels, while retaining candidate probability weights in a truncated token support. The deployed student directly predicts four score distributions without checklist inputs or explicit reasoning and aggregates their expectations into a scalar reward. CheckDistill achieves aggregate accuracies of 72.30%, 56.67% and 82.90% on MMRB2, MER-Bench and EditReward-Bench, respectively, exceeding the compared open-source baselines on all three metrics.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of CheckDistill compared with existing reward model architecture.
Figure 2: An example of checklist generation and checklist-based evaluation for image editing.
Figure 3: Overview of CheckDistill , comprising reward data construction, two-stage reward model training via supervised fine-tuning and checklist-guided reliability-aware OPSD, and reward feedback alignment for image editing.
MMRB2
MER-Bench
EditReward-Bench
Model
Single
Multi
Overall
2 pair
3 pair
4 pair
Overall
PF
CS
Overall
GPT-4.1
56.33
57.87
56.60
79.50
42.50
18.50
46.83
70.00
65.20
73.40
Gemini-3.1-Pro
65.20
60.11
64.29
79.00
60.50
24.00
54.50
66.30
75.70
79.80
Gemini-3.0-Flash
66.71
58.64
65.34
82.50
63.00
26.00
57.17
68.70
77.90
80.90
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
63.02
57.87
62.10
73.00
42.00
16.00
43.67
77.20
70.90
75.80
Qwen3.5-4B
57.79
54.49
57.20
75.50
36.00
15.50
42.33
74.40
69.60
70.50
Table 1: Reward benchmark accuracy (%, ↑ ). Submetric results for EditReward, EditScore-8B, and SpatialReward are reproduced from SpatialReward ( Long et al., 2026 ) . Bold marks the best result among the compared open-source models in each column.
Model
ImgEdit Bench
REDEdit Bench
GEdit-EN
Qwen-Image-Edit
4.29
4.10
8.18
UniWorld-Qwen-Image-Edit
4.30
4.06
8.12
+ DiffusionNFT (CheckDistill-9B)
4.46
4.26
8.28
Table 2: Image-editing performance ( ↑ ).
Figure 4: Qualitative Comparison Before and After CheckDistill-based Reward Training.
Table 9: Ablation study of the design choices in CR-OPSD (%, ↑ ). All variants use the same privileged information (C,J,A) . Bold indicates the best result in each column.
ImgEdit-Bench
GEdit-Bench-EN
Model
Add
Adjust
Extract
Replace
Remove
Background
Style
Compose
Action
Overall
G_SC
G_PQ
G_O
Qwen-Image-Edit
4.40
4.30
3.67
4.64
4.34
4.30
4.83
3.39
4.71
4.287
8.855
7.949
8.181
UniWorld-Qwen-Image-Edit
4.42
4.31
3.71
4.69
4.32
4.28
4.83
3.42
4.68
4.296
8.824
7.884
8.119
+ DiffusionNFT (CheckDistill-9B)
4.47
4.68
4.52
4.65
4.41
4.40
4.89
3.60
4.51
4.459
8.909
8.039
8.280
Appendix
Table 10: Results on ImgEdit-Bench and GEdit-Bench-EN.
RED-Bench
Model
Add
Adjust
Background
Beauty
Color
Compose
Extract
Low-level
Motion
Portrait
Remove
Replace
Stylize
Text
Viewpoint
Overall
Qwen-Image-Edit
4.54
4.08
4.31
3.14
4.06
3.85
3.04
4.47
4.68
4.37
4.21
4.59
4.68
3.94
3.55
4.10
UniWorld-Qwen-Image-Edit
4.48
4.07
4.40
3.19
4.10
3.84
2.87
4.28
4.63
4.35
4.25
4.56
4.72
3.83
3.40
4.06
+ DiffusionNFT (CheckDistill-9B)
4.60
4.25
4.42
3.37
4.38
3.99
4.07
4.59
4.55
4.10
4.39
4.56
4.73
4.15
3.73
4.26
Appendix
Table 11: Results on RED-Bench.
Figure 6: Example of Checklist-Guided Judgment by CheckDistill
Figure 7: Example of Checklist-Guided Judgment by CheckDistill
Figure 8: Example of Checklist-Guided Judgment by CheckDistill
Figure 9: Training reward for Qwen-Image-Edit using CheckDistill as the reward model.
Figure 10: Qualitative Comparison Before and After CheckDistill-based Reward Training.
Figure 11: Qualitative Comparison Before and After CheckDistill-based Reward Training.
Aligning generative models with human preferences remains a central challenge. While RLHF is widely adopted, it relies on large-scale preference data. This limitation is particularly evident in evaluating instruction-guided image edits, even though humans can often learn such preferences from only a few examples. We present RewardHarness, a training-free, self-evolving agentic reward framework that reframes reward modeling as context evolution rather than weight optimization. Instead of learning from large-scale annotations, RewardHarness aligns with human preferences by iteratively evolving a library of tools and skills from as few as 100 preference demonstrations. Given a source image, an edited image, and an editing instruction, an orchestrator agent selects the most relevant subset of tools and skills from the maintained library, and sub-agents invoke them to construct a reasoning chain that produces a reward score. By comparing predicted scores with ground-truth preferences and analyzing successes and failures in the reasoning process, the orchestrator automatically refines its library of tools and skills without additional human annotation. Using only 0.05% of the EditReward preference data, RewardHarness achieves 47.4% average accuracy on EditReward-Bench K=2/3/4 and GenAI-Bench, surpassing GPT-5 by 5.3 points. When used as a reward signal in FlowGRPO, RL-tuned models achieve 3.52 on ImgEdit-Bench. Code and model are available at the project page: https://rewardharness.com/
Yuxuan Zhang, Cong Wei, Penghui Du +11
University of British Columbia · Vector Institute · Kolors Team, Kuaishou Technology +5
Recent image editing models have achieved remarkable progress in instruction following, multimodal understanding, and complex visual editing. However, existing benchmarks often fail to faithfully reflect human judgment, especially for strong frontier models, due to limited task difficulty and coarse-grained evaluation protocols. In parallel, reward models have become increasingly important for RL-based image editing optimization, yet existing reward model benchmarks still rely on unrealistic evaluation settings that deviate from practical RL scenarios. These limitations hinder reliable assessment of both image editing models and reward models. To address these challenges, we introduce Edit-Compass and EditReward-Compass, a unified evaluation suite for image editing and reward modeling. Edit-Compass contains 2,388 carefully annotated instances spanning six progressively challenging task categories, covering capabilities such as world knowledge reasoning, visual reasoning, and multi-image editing. Beyond broad task coverage, Edit-Compass adopts a fine-grained multidimensional evaluation framework based on structured reasoning and carefully designed scoring rubrics. In parallel, EditReward-Compass contains 2,251 preference pairs that simulate realistic reward modeling scenarios during RL optimization.
While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has become a pivotal paradigm for text-to-image generation, its application to image editing remains largely unexplored. A key bottleneck is the lack of a robust general reward model for all editing tasks. Existing edit reward models usually give overall scores without detailed checks, ignoring different instruction requirements and causing biased rewards. To address this, we argue that the key is to move from a simple scorer to a reasoning verifier. We introduce Edit-R1, a framework that builds a chain-of-thought (CoT) verifier-based reasoning reward model (RRM) and then leverages it for downstream image editing. The Edit-RRM breaks instructions into distinct principles, evaluates the edited image against each principle, and aggregates these checks into an interpretable, fine-grained reward. To build such an RRM, we first apply supervised fine-tuning (SFT) as a ``cold-start'' to generate CoT reward trajectories. Then, we introduce Group Contrastive Preference Optimization (GCPO), a reinforcement learning algorithm that leverages human pairwise preference data to reinforce our pointwise RRM. After building the RRM, we use GRPO to train editing models with this non-differentiable yet powerful reward model. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our Edit-RRM surpasses powerful VLMs such as Seed-1.5-VL and Seed-1.6-VL as an editing-specific reward model, and we observe a clear scaling trend, with performance consistently improving from 3B to 7B parameters. Moreover, Edit-R1 delivers gains to editing models like FLUX.1-kontext, highlighting its effectiveness in enhancing image editing.
Hanzhong Guo, Jie Wu, Jie Liu +6
School of Computing and Data Science, The University of Hong Kong · ByteDance Seed · CUHK +1