Writing study: SliderEdit: Continuous Image Editing with Fine-Grained Instruction Control

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Arman Zarei, Samyadeep Basu, Mobina Pournemat, Sayan Nag, Ryan A. Rossi, Soheil Feizi · Official CVPR 2026 oral record

Observed writing choices, not acceptance rules. This study examines the inspected manuscript version. It does not establish why the paper was accepted or that its presentation choices should be copied unchanged.

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Architecture & representation (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF

10 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.13 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

7 / 2

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 81.3%References / intervening material: ≈ 18.7%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level heading	Starts on PDF page	Estimated span	Share of entire PDF
1. Introduction	1	≈ 0.83 pp.	8.3%
2. Related Works	2	≈ 0.48 pp.	4.8%
3. SliderEdit: Continuous Image Editing	3	≈ 2.42 pp.	24.2%
4. Experiments	5	≈ 3.23 pp.	32.3%
5. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.27 pp.	2.7%
References	9	≈ 1.87 pp.	18.7%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 1
• Figure 2 · p. 3
• Figure 3 · p. 4
• Figure 4 · p. 6
• Figure 5 · p. 7
• Figure 6 · p. 7
• Table 1 · p. 8
• Table 2 · p. 8
• Figure 7 · p. 8

Attached appendix

No recognized caption labels.

Separate source files—excluded from canonical-PDF totals

A separate author version may repeat main text and references. Whole-file lengths and counts are not extra appendix material and are never added to the canonical PDF totals. Read the study's source scope for which sections received substantive reading versus layout inspection.

Additional source 1

Separate PDF (or ZIP containing it): whole-file layout of 9 physical pages; 10 detected figures and 0 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 8.88 page-equivalents, 10 figure labels and 0 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
Supplementary Material	1	≈ 0.35 pp.
6. Related Works	1	≈ 0.69 pp.
7. SliderEdit: Continuous Image Editing	2	≈ 0.38 pp.
8. Experiments	2	≈ 7.45 pp.

• Figure 8 · p. 1
• Figure 9 · p. 1
• Figure 10 · p. 3
• Figure 11 · p. 3
• Figure 12 · p. 4
• Figure 13 · p. 5
• Figure 14 · p. 6
• Figure 15 · p. 7
• Figure 16 · p. 8
• Figure 17 · p. 9

Argument and organization

1. Intervention study before adapter

   Analyze instruction-token influence before introducing learned suppression and sliders.

2. Control dimensions and metrics

   Separate single/multiple instruction settings and assess continuity, extrapolation and identity preservation.

Problem, claim and contribution

The paper distinguishes producing an edit from controlling each component's strength within a composite instruction, giving the contribution a user-observable objective.

Introduction and Figure 1, PDF pp. 1–2 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

Instruction-level interpretability is a method subsection before the adapter design, so the targeted token intervention has an empirical motivation.

Sections 3.1–3.3, PDF pp. 3–4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Page 3 varies one instruction-token interpolation while keeping the source visible; page 6 uses ordered image strips to demonstrate gradual local and global edits rather than only end points.

Figure 2, PDF p. 3; Figure 4, PDF p. 6; visual inspection · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Single-instruction and multi-instruction results are distinct tables, and the text acknowledges different identity/extrapolation strengths across the two base editors.

Tables 1–2 and Figure 7, PDF p. 8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

The supplement distinguishes full PPS from simplified SPPS, states which objective is actually used, defines continuity metrics and adds multidimensional editing grids.

Supplement Sections 7–8, PDF pp. 1–4 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

Training pseudocode makes target-instruction suppression and the teacher target obtained from the remaining prompt operationally explicit.

Algorithms 1–2, PDF p. 5 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: For a controllability paper, visualize the whole control trajectory and test independent axes; a pair of before/after images cannot establish smoothness or disentanglement.

Boundary: A smooth metric curve does not alone guarantee semantic disentanglement. Keep objective variants and the tested facial-editing evaluation scope explicit.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-09-26

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Manuscript-wide writing scan of PDF pp. 1–10: framing, argument sequence, section organization, figure/table captions, evaluation interpretation and limitations; reference sections identified. This is a writing-focused scan, not an exhaustive technical proof or reproduction audit. Main PDF pages 3 and 6 were rendered and visually inspected.

Appendix / supplement

Writing-focused scan of the separate supplementary PDF, pp. 1–9, including its organization, captions, protocol/evidence detail and limitation material where present; proofs and code listings were inspected for exposition, not independently verified or executed. Supplement Sections 7–8, PDF pp. 1–4. Linked video/audio demonstrations and non-PDF archive contents were not assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

3, 6

This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.

• Official CVPR 2026 CVF open-access accepted manuscript; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 10 pages
• Official CVPR 2026 CVF supplementary PDF; retrieved 2026-09-26 · 9 pages