PhysEditBench: A Protocol-Conditioned Benchmark for Dense Physical-Map Prediction with Image Editors
Fuente:
arXiv
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Preprint |
| Publicado: |
2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866914563344039936 |
|---|---|
| author | Yang, Jiaxin Hou, Yu Liu, Muxin Liu, Weixuan Yuan, Ze Chen, Zeming Wang, Zhongrui Qi, Xiaojuan |
| author_facet | Yang, Jiaxin Hou, Yu Liu, Muxin Liu, Weixuan Yuan, Ze Chen, Zeming Wang, Zhongrui Qi, Xiaojuan |
| contents | Can general-purpose image editors predict physical maps from a single RGB image? General-purpose image editors differ from standard task-specific dense-prediction models: they do not directly take an image and output a physical map. Instead, they must be guided by prompts, examples, or image-based textual cues. To this end, we introduce PhysEditBench, a novel protocol-conditioned benchmark to evaluate and standardize image editors in dense physical-map prediction that covers five targets: depth, normal, albedo, roughness, and metallic maps. For evaluation data, we build a target-dependent benchmark substrate. We use OpenRooms-FF for depth, surface normal, albedo, and roughness, InteriorVerse as an additional source for depth, normal, albedo, and a new procedurally generated source for metallic maps. We curate the data with quality checks, valid-region masks, scene-level sampling, and lighting-based stress subsets to ensure reliable and diverse evaluation. For each target, PhysEditBench defines a fixed protocol that specifies the allowed input, expected output format, and scoring procedure. Each score, therefore, reflects the performance of a model under a specified protocol, rather than its best possible performance under all prompts or interaction modes. Experimental results show that specialized models remain much stronger on depth, normal, and albedo, and stronger image editors can produce more reasonable map-like outputs. For roughness and metallic, image editors can match or outperform specialized baselines on some scalar metrics, but they still suffer from structural errors, sparsity effects, and sensitivity to lighting. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_13493 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | PhysEditBench: A Protocol-Conditioned Benchmark for Dense Physical-Map Prediction with Image Editors Yang, Jiaxin Hou, Yu Liu, Muxin Liu, Weixuan Yuan, Ze Chen, Zeming Wang, Zhongrui Qi, Xiaojuan Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Can general-purpose image editors predict physical maps from a single RGB image? General-purpose image editors differ from standard task-specific dense-prediction models: they do not directly take an image and output a physical map. Instead, they must be guided by prompts, examples, or image-based textual cues. To this end, we introduce PhysEditBench, a novel protocol-conditioned benchmark to evaluate and standardize image editors in dense physical-map prediction that covers five targets: depth, normal, albedo, roughness, and metallic maps. For evaluation data, we build a target-dependent benchmark substrate. We use OpenRooms-FF for depth, surface normal, albedo, and roughness, InteriorVerse as an additional source for depth, normal, albedo, and a new procedurally generated source for metallic maps. We curate the data with quality checks, valid-region masks, scene-level sampling, and lighting-based stress subsets to ensure reliable and diverse evaluation. For each target, PhysEditBench defines a fixed protocol that specifies the allowed input, expected output format, and scoring procedure. Each score, therefore, reflects the performance of a model under a specified protocol, rather than its best possible performance under all prompts or interaction modes. Experimental results show that specialized models remain much stronger on depth, normal, and albedo, and stronger image editors can produce more reasonable map-like outputs. For roughness and metallic, image editors can match or outperform specialized baselines on some scalar metrics, but they still suffer from structural errors, sparsity effects, and sensitivity to lighting. |
| title | PhysEditBench: A Protocol-Conditioned Benchmark for Dense Physical-Map Prediction with Image Editors |
| topic | Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13493 |