arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2603.05518

CoEditor++: Instruction-based Visual Editing via Cognitive Reasoning

Abstract

Recent advances in large multimodal models (LMMs) have enabled instruction-based image editing, allowing users to modify visual content via natural language descriptions. However, existing approaches often struggle with high-level semantic reasoning and visual consistency, particularly under ambiguous or complex instructions. To address these challenges, we propose CoEditor++, a cognitively structured, training-free framework that decomposes editing into "what to edit" and "how to edit" through two cognitive stages with a reflective self-selection mechanism, enabling robust, fine-grained, and interpretable editing. Built entirely from open-sourced components, CoEditor++ requires no additional training or fine-tuning, ensuring transparency and cross-domain applicability. We evaluate CoEditor++ on SmartEdit, a widely used benchmark for general editing, and AltBear, a privacy and compliance-oriented benchmark. Experimental results show that CoEditor++ achieves state-of-the-art performance in both general editing and responsible editing tasks compared with open-sourced models that require training on specialized editing datasets maintaining significantly higher visual consistency. When compared with closed-source models such as Nano Banana Pro or GPT-4o, CoEditor++ preserves comparable instruction following while still substantially outperforming them in visual consistency. Extensive ablation studies confirm that the effectiveness of CoEditor++ benefits from its structured cognitive design rather than any specific model component. Our findings suggest the potential toward cognitive-centric instruction-based image editing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Minheng Ni, Yutao Fan, Zhengyuan Yang, Yeli Shen, Yuxiang Wei, Yaowen Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Lei Zhang, Wangmeng Zuo. 2026-01-31. CoEditor++: Instruction-based Visual Editing via Cognitive Reasoning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05518

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

ShellVis: Sandboxed Live Programming for Shell Scripts

Live programming provides visibility to programmers by running and tracing programs as they are edited. However, for programs with potentially harmful side effects, liveness can turn mistakes into disasters. We propose enabling live programming in environments with side effects via sandboxing: confining effects to a simulation of the true environment. We apply sandboxed live programming in the challenging context of shell scripting: a ubiquitous and powerful---yet notoriously opaque and error-prone---tool. ShellVis provides line-by-line feedback on a shell script's run-time behavior, with file operations sandboxed via a safe overlay of the file system. A qualitative user evaluation finds ShellVis to be helpful to participants, replacing tedious existing practices and instilling confidence. Participant responses also reveal areas for future research, particularly bridging the gulf of execution alongside the gulf of evaluation. ShellVis serves as a case study of how sandboxing can bring live-programming techniques into the many real-world programming contexts where side effects are important.

cs.HC

Visual-Motion-Induced Modulation of Pedestrian Trajectories Using Spatially Distributed Multi-Display Signage in Public Spaces

Multi-display signage (MDS), now ubiquitous in urban environments, has the potential to influence human behavior and experience in public spaces. However, despite its unique capability to present spatially distributed dynamic visual stimuli, its current use is mainly limited to advertising. In this study, we propose a perception-based approach for laterally modulating pedestrian trajectories as a nonverbal means of guiding pedestrians in public spaces. The approach is motivated by vection, the illusion of self-motion, and uses laterally moving monochrome stripes, a standard stimulus in vection research, presented across spatially distributed displays to elicit postural responses that may bias pedestrian trajectories. We evaluated the approach through a controlled laboratory experiment and a real-world field deployment involving actual pedestrian flows in a national museum. The laboratory experiment examined whether the MDS setup induced trajectory shifts in the direction predicted by prior research on the behavioral effects of vection. The field deployment investigated whether comparable effects would emerge in aggregate pedestrian behavior during unconstrained movement under conditions closer to those of urban public spaces. In the laboratory, full-screen motion significantly biased walking trajectories in the direction of visual motion, whereas partial-stripe motion produced no significant directional effect. In the field deployment, opposing full-screen motion conditions produced direction-consistent differences in aggregate pedestrian positions. The field results, observed despite the substantial variability in real-world pedestrian flows, extend the controlled laboratory findings and provide ecologically valid evidence supporting practical MDS-based pedestrian modulation in public settings. The results further suggest that sufficient visual-motion coverage may be important.

cs.HC

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

cs.HC