Mobina Pournemat

Arman Zarei, Samyadeep Basu, Mobina Pournemat et al.

Instruction-based image editing models have recently achieved impressive performance, enabling complex edits to an input image from a multi-instruction prompt. However, these models apply each instruction in the prompt with a fixed strength, limiting the user's ability to precisely and continuously control the intensity of individual edits. We introduce SliderEdit, a framework for continuous image editing with fine-grained, interpretable instruction control. Given a multi-part edit instruction, SliderEdit disentangles the individual instructions and exposes each as a globally trained slider, allowing smooth adjustment of its strength. Unlike prior works that introduced slider-based attribute controls in text-to-image generation, typically requiring separate training or fine-tuning for each attribute or concept, our method learns a single set of low-rank adaptation matrices that generalize across diverse edits, attributes, and compositional instructions. This enables continuous interpolation along individual edit dimensions while preserving both spatial locality and global semantic consistency. We apply SliderEdit to state-of-the-art image editing models, including FLUX-Kontext and Qwen-Image-Edit, and observe substantial improvements in edit controllability, visual consistency, and user steerability. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to explore and propose a framework for continuous, fine-grained instruction control in instruction-based image editing models. Our results pave the way for interactive, instruction-driven image manipulation with continuous and compositional control.

Mobina Pournemat, Keivan Rezaei, Gaurang Sriramanan et al.

Despite widespread success in language understanding and generation, large language models (LLMs) exhibit unclear and often inconsistent behavior when faced with tasks that require probabilistic reasoning. In this work, we present the first comprehensive study of the reasoning capabilities of LLMs over explicit discrete probability distributions. Given observations from a probability distribution, we evaluate models on three carefully designed tasks, mode identification, maximum likelihood estimation, and sample generation, by prompting them to provide responses to queries about either the joint distribution or its conditionals. These tasks thus probe a range of probabilistic skills, including frequency analysis, marginalization, and generative behavior. Through comprehensive empirical evaluations, we demonstrate that there exists a clear performance gap between smaller and larger models, with the latter demonstrating stronger inference and surprising capabilities in sample generation. Furthermore, our investigations reveal notable limitations, including sensitivity to variations in the notation utilized to represent probabilistic outcomes and performance degradation of over 60% as context length increases. Together, our results provide a detailed understanding of the probabilistic reasoning abilities of LLMs and identify key directions for future improvement.

Kazem Faghih, Yize Cheng, Shoumik Saha et al.

Large language models (LLMs) often achieve strong accuracy on benchmarks, yet it remains unclear how reliably they apply this knowledge when the same question is phrased in different but equivalent ways. In this work, we study how model answers change under meaning-preserving paraphrases across factual question answering and mathematical reasoning tasks. Across four benchmarks and 13 models, we find that model outputs frequently depend on the exact wording of the prompt. While overall accuracy typically changes only modestly across paraphrases, instance-level behavior is far less stable: for many questions, models alternate between correct and incorrect answers depending on phrasing, with mismatch rates reaching more than 23%. Conditioning on questions that are answered correctly in their original form reveals even larger failures measured by answer flip rates, showing that single-prompt correctness is often a poor indicator of reliability. At the same time, we find that models often produce a correct answer for at least one paraphrase of a question, suggesting that the underlying knowledge is present but inconsistently retrieved. Building on this observation, we show that a simple self-paraphrasing strategy can partially recover this latent knowledge and improve performance at inference time. Together, these findings suggest that standard accuracy metrics can mask substantial instability, and that evaluating consistency across equivalent inputs provides a clearer picture of LLM reliability.