Abstract
Recent studies have shown that large generative models can solve vision tasks they were not explicitly trained for. However, existing evidence relies on closed-source models~(Veo~3, Nano Banana Pro) or requires task-specific instruction tuning, leaving open whether publicly available image-editing models possess zero-shot vision abilities out of the box. We conduct a systematic evaluation of three open-source image-editing models -- Qwen-Image-Edit, FireRed-Image-Edit, and LongCat-Image-Edit -- on dense visual prediction tasks \emph{without any fine-tuning}. We benchmark monocular depth estimation on NYUv2 and DIODE, surface normal estimation on NYUv2, and semantic segmentation on Cityscapes, covering both geometric and semantic scene understanding. Results show that open-source image-editing models exhibit non-trivial zero-shot visual understanding. On NYUv2 surface normals, FireRed-Image-Edit achieves a mean angular error of $17.69^\circ$, surpassing the fine-tuned Marigold ($20.86^\circ$) and matching the instruction-tuned Vision Banana ($17.78^\circ$) without any task-specific training. On NYUv2 depth estimation, LongCat-Image-Edit obtains $\delta_1{=}0.822$ with affine alignment, and Qwen-Image-Edit leads on DIODE Indoor ($\delta_1{=}0.868$). On Cityscapes semantic segmentation, Qwen-Image-Edit reaches 25.7 mIoU at the 19-class level and 49.5 mIoU at a coarser 7-category level. By comparing three independently trained editors, we test whether zero-shot vision ability is an emergent property of image-editing pretraining rather than a model-specific artifact. Code, evaluation scripts, and all results are publicly released to serve as a reproducible baseline for future work.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04566
