FunEditor: Achieving Complex Image Edits via Function Aggregation with Diffusion Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diffusion models have demonstrated outstanding performance in generative tasks, making them ideal candidates for image editing. Recent studies highlight their ability to apply desired edits effectively by following textual instructions, yet with two key challenges remaining. First, these models struggle to apply multiple edits simultaneously, resulting in computational inefficiencies due to their reliance on sequential processing. Second, relying on textual prompts to determine the editing region can lead to unintended alterations to the image. We introduce FunEditor, an efficient diffusion model designed to learn atomic editing functions and perform complex edits by aggregating simpler functions. This approach enables complex editing tasks, such as object movement, by aggregating multiple functions and applying them simultaneously to specific areas. Our experiments demonstrate that FunEditor significantly outperforms recent inference-time optimization methods and fine-tuned models, either quantitatively across various metrics or through visual comparisons or both, on complex tasks like object movement and object pasting. In the meantime, with only 4 steps of inference, FunEditor achieves 5--24$\times$ inference speedups over existing popular methods.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".