Preserve or Modify? Context-Aware Evaluation for Balancing Preservation and Modification in Text-Guided Image Editing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of vision-language and generative models has significantly advanced text-guided image editing, which seeks the preservation of core elements in the source image while implementing modifications based on the target text. However, existing metrics have a context-blindness problem, indiscriminately applying the same evaluation criteria on completely different pairs of source image and target text, biasing towards either modification or preservation. Directional CLIP similarity, the only metric that considers both source image and target text, is also biased towards modification aspects and attends to irrelevant editing regions of the image. We propose AugCLIP, a context-aware metric that adaptively coordinates preservation and modification aspects, depending on the specific context of a given source image and target text. This is done by deriving the CLIP representation of an ideally edited image, that preserves the source image with necessary modifications to align with target text. More specifically, using a multi-modal large language model, AugCLIP augments the textual descriptions of the source and target, then calculates a modification vector through a hyperplane that separates source and target attributes in CLIP space. Extensive experiments on five benchmark datasets, encompassing a diverse range of editing scenarios, show that AugCLIP aligns remarkably well with human evaluation standards, outperforming existing metrics. The code is available at https://github.com/augclip/augclip_eval.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".