Abstract
Ask a commercial image editor to preview a cosmetic procedure and it will often change more of the face than the request names: a nose edit can also smooth skin or alter lighting. Existing methods for confining an edit to one region require access to the model's internals, which a public editing API does not expose. We ask how much control is possible from the client side alone. In a pilot benchmark, six commercial editing configurations and one mask-based inpainting model perform facelift-style jaw-neck and rhinoplasty edits at three levels of client-side control: the prompt alone; cutting the edited region out of the response and pasting it back onto the original photograph through a landmark-derived mask (a masked composite); and asking the model itself to inpaint inside the mask where supported. Of 210 attempted edits, 196 could be scored. ArcFace cosine measures identity preservation; a CIELAB pixel-change ratio measures how much change lands inside the requested region rather than a protected facial zone. On the 12 frontal faces the regional metric could score, the masked composite improved localization over the paired prompt-only output by a median of 0.446 (95% face-clustered bootstrap interval 0.421-0.457) while changing the requested region about as much. Editors differed in edit strength versus identity retention, and the one inpainting model we tested did not beat the simple composite. Against each face's input-to-postoperative baseline, no editor moved its outputs closer to the postoperative photograph in identity-embedding terms. This is a study of control, not clinical accuracy: no surgeons rated the outputs, and each condition was generated once. Within that scope, keeping a surgical preview inside its intended region needs no access to the model; a mask and composite on the client enforce it across every editor tested, at low provider cost.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02841
