MethodologyAnnotator qualityUpdatesHugging Face416.9k downloadsSuggest a model or benchmarkRequest a private benchmark
Benchmarks
Dimensions
Models
Categories
Edit target
People in the photo
Face size
Photo shape
View
Multi-Step Image Editing (Identity Drift) v1updated 2026-11-10

The Human-Preference Leaderboard for Identity Drift in Multi-Step Image Editing

Rapidatabenchmark@rapidata.ai

Abstract

As image-generation models become a standard part of consumer applications, editing photographs has emerged as a common use case. Despite steady gains in fidelity, these edits tend to introduce subtle but unrequested alterations, and this effect compounds when outputs are repeatedly fed back as inputs. On human faces, this accumulation gradually erodes the subject’s identity, a phenomenon we refer to as identity drift. Because people are acutely sensitive to faces, they sense that something is off even when they cannot say what changed. This benchmark measures identity drift on 199 photographs of real people. Each photograph gets a prompt chain of five everyday edit prompts on clothing, objects or text in the scene, none of which concerns the face. Every model applies the prompts in turn, each to its own previous output, and every step is checked automatically for whether the requested edit was made. Human annotators then compare the faces after the fifth edit in pairwise matches, with the original face shown as reference, and judge which looks more similar to it. The 322,417 votes cast across 60,800 such matches are aggregated into ratings with a Bradley–Terry model, such that a higher rating indicates less identity drift; the methodology details matchmaking and score estimation.

LeaderboardCompare OutputsMatchupsAnalysisPrompt chainsModel settingsDetails
How a prompt chain is scored: each model makes the same five chained edits. Annotators then compare two models' faces after the fifth edit, with the original face as reference. Photo: Umarxon III, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 1. How a prompt chain is scored: each model makes the same five chained edits. Annotators then compare two models' faces after the fifth edit, with the original face as reference. Photo: Umarxon III, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons.
1. Motivation
When a photograph of a person is edited, the requested change is rarely the only thing that matters: the person should remain recognisably the same, even though no prompt says so. This holds most strongly for edits that have nothing to do with the face, such as changing clothing, adding an object or rewriting a sign. There, any change to the face is purely a side effect. Yet editing models offer no guarantee that untouched regions stay untouched. Open models have been shown to re-synthesise the whole image rather than only the region the prompt targets (Qin et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2025), while most commercial editors do not publish their architecture. So each edit can subtly alter a face that was meant to stay the same. A change that is invisible after one edit, such as a slightly different jawline, eye shape or skin texture, carries into the next edit. After a handful of edits, the face may belong to someone else. Evaluations of single edits cannot observe this effect, and automated face-similarity metrics agree with human judgement only partly: in our pilot, an automated face-recognition score picked the face that annotators preferred in 74% of matches. This benchmark therefore measures identity drift across a chain of edits, as judged by people.
2. Problem formulation
Let x₀ be a reference photograph and (p₁, …, p₅) its prompt chain. A model f produces xₜ = f(xₜ₋₁, pₜ) for t = 1, …, 5, seeing only its own previous output and the current prompt. We ask how similar the face in x₅ is to the face in x₀. No prompt asks the model to keep the person unchanged, so the benchmark measures each model’s own tendency to drift, not its ability to follow a prompt to preserve identity.Three rules keep the comparison fair:
  1. Faces after the fifth edit. Drift accumulates with every edit, so only the fifth outputs are compared.
  2. Every edit must be made. Otherwise a model could keep the face intact simply by not making the edit. A step counts only when the requested edit is visible in the output. A model has three attempts per step, and its prompt chain ends at a step it fails three times. Two models are compared only on photographs where both completed all five edits. A model is ranked only if it completes at least 80% of the prompt chains.
  3. Faces, with the original as reference. Annotators compare the two fifth-step faces, cut with the same box from each output, with the original face as reference. A match goes to the face that the majority of its votes rated more similar.
3. Prompt chains and reference images
Photographs. Of the 199 photographs, 179 come from Wikimedia Commons’ quality-image categories and 20 from StockSnap and Rawpixel through Openverse. All are under CC0, CC BY or CC BY-SA licences. They were screened automatically, then chosen by hand. Each shows one to four real, living adults as the main subject. The largest face fills at least 10% of the image height and roughly faces the camera. The whole frame is in focus, with several clearly visible items to edit: clothing, objects or signs. Portraits, cosplay, costumes and face paint were excluded.Reference images. Each photograph is fetched from its original file and rotated by its EXIF orientation, and its colours are converted to sRGB. It is then cropped to the closest of three shapes, resized (Lanczos) to 1248×832, 832×1248 or 1024×1024 px and saved losslessly as PNG. For 78 photographs the crop was placed by hand so that every face stays in frame; 18 smaller Openverse photographs are enlarged.Prompt chains. Each prompt chain edits clothing, objects or text in the scene; most stay with one of these. The Prompt chains tab counts the prompt chains by every kind of item they edit. Prompts use everyday words and basic colours, with at most 14 words (median 9). Four rules keep them unambiguous:
  • each target is the only one of its kind in the image;
  • a replacement is of the same kind as what it replaces;
  • an added or moved item comes with its place;
  • no prompt relies on a place created by an earlier step.
No prompt concerns the face, and seventeen prompt chains change the hair colour once. Text edits change one surface in place and state the colours of the sign and the letters. An LLM wrote the prompt chains from the image. Where several models failed the same step because a prompt was ambiguous, we revised the prompt. The same tab counts the prompt chains by number of people, face size and photo shape.
4. Image edits setup
Minimal intervention. Every setting is left at the default of the lab’s own API and sent explicitly, except for these interventions:
  • Highest effort: quality, reasoning, thinking and precision at their maximum. For Grok Imagine Image 2.0 that is medium quality, as xAI offers no higher level.
  • Shape and resolution: where a model can set the aspect ratio or keep the input’s, we set that and leave the resolution at the model’s default. Wan 2.7 Pro and the three Qwen models can do neither, so we set their output to the input’s exact size. For Wan, this is below its default of 2K. A model whose outputs consistently change the shape by more than 1% is excluded. An occasional off-shape output fails the step check and is retried. For a 1248×832 input the outputs are 1248×832 for most models, 1264×848 for Nano Banana, 1920×1280 for Muse and 2496×1664 for Seedream.
  • Watermarks off and the least restrictive moderation that can be sent, including fal’s own safety checker. A refusal counts as a failed attempt.
  • Prompt rewriting at the lab’s own default; switches that fal adds on top of a lab’s API are off.
  • A fixed seed per model, photograph, step and attempt wherever the model accepts one. One image per call, and the step’s prompt is the only text sent.
Output format. Each model returns the format its lab’s API returns by default. That is JPEG for Seedream 5.0 Pro and Lite (BytePlus) and Grok Imagine Image 2.0 (xAI), WebP for Muse Image (Meta) and PNG for all others. Each output is passed to the next step unchanged, in whatever format and size the model returned it, so no lossy conversion enters the chain. The Model settings tab lists every setting per model.Step check. After every attempt, OpenAI’s gpt-6.1-sol (medium reasoning effort) compares the model’s input and output with the prompt. It fills in a checklist:
  • Does the prompt apply to the image?
  • Did the right item change, in the right place?
  • After a move or replacement, is the old place empty?
  • Are the colour, words, material or object type right?
  • Is the framing kept?
  • Which major changes were not requested?
It ignores faces and image quality. An edit counts as made when every check passes, or when the right item visibly changed with one detail wrong; otherwise the attempt fails. Timeouts and server errors are retried without using up an attempt. Listing 1 gives the full instruction.Face crops. Each model’s fifth image is resized to the reference size and cut with the face box of its photograph: a square of 1.7 times the larger side of the largest face, its centre raised by 5% of the face height, found once on the reference image and scaled to 768×768 px. The box is never detected anew on a model’s output, so a face that has moved or changed shape is shown as it is.
5. Discussion
Working resolution. Most models edit at their default output size, from about 1 MP up to 4.15 MP for Seedream 5.0 Pro and Lite at 2K. Models without an aspect-ratio setting get the input’s exact size. Because each step starts from the previous output, a model that works at a higher resolution may lose less detail in the face from one step to the next. We leave resolution at each model’s default rather than treating it as a quality setting.Models not ranked. A model is ranked only if it completes at least 80% of the prompt chains. Models such as FLUX 3 Klein, P-Image-Edit, GPT Image 2, FLUX 2 Max and HiDream O1 did not make the cut: they changed the image too much, or failed the edits too often, to complete the prompt chains.Limitations. Two models are compared only on photographs both completed, so a model that fails the harder prompt chains is compared on the easier ones; the 80% threshold limits this. Each model ran each prompt chain once. A second run could end with a somewhat different face, so a score includes some chance; averaging over 199 photographs reduces it but does not remove it.

Full protocol in the global methodology.

We use crowd intelligence to deliver real, diverse human feedback at scale for model evaluation and post-training.

Benchmarks
Text-to-ImageOutput Diversity (Mode Collapse)Multi-Step Image Editing (Identity Drift)Camera MovementRelative Camera MovementPhysicsPhysicsRealismImage-to-3DSVGLLM-to-3DSuggest a model or benchmark
Method
MethodologyData on Hugging Face
Rapidata
rapidata.ai Private benchmarksContactX LinkedIn
Rapidata, benchmark.ai © 2026