WithEveryone: Unified Planning and Identity Grounding for Group Image Generation

arXiv:2608.203362026-08-19

여러 명 얼굴을 한 사진에 넣을 때, AI가 누구를 어디에 배치할지 먼저 계획하게 만들었더니 얼굴 뒤섞임이 크게 줄었다

여러 사람의 얼굴 사진을 참고해 단체 사진을 만드는 AI는 인원이 5~10명으로 늘어나면 얼굴이 뒤섞이거나 복사-붙여넣기 티가 나는 문제가 심해진다. WithEveryone은 이미지를 그리기 전에 누가 어디에 어떤 자세로 들어갈지 먼저 계획을 세우고, 계획한 얼굴 위치를 기준으로 각 인물을 직접 감독하는 방식으로 이 문제를 풀었다. 그 결과 목표 이미지 속 얼굴 닮음도가 GPT-Image 2의 0.462보다 높은 0.499를 기록했고, 복사-붙여넣기 티(0.169에서 0.055로)도 크게 줄었다.

무엇을 했나

기존 방식은 참고 얼굴 사진을 넣어도 사람이 늘어나면 누구 얼굴이 누구인지 학습 과정에서 헷갈려 정체성이 뒤섞이는 문제가 있었다
WithEveryone은 각 인물을 이름표가 붙은 토큰으로 넣고, 이미지를 그리기 전에 인물 배치도(위치, 자세, 누가 어디인지)를 먼저 문장처럼 예측한 뒤 이를 그림 조건으로 변환한다
핵심 기법인 Layout-Grounded ID Loss는 미리 정해둔 얼굴 위치 영역을 기준으로 각 인물을 감독해서, 불안정한 얼굴 매칭 없이도 정확한 정체성 학습이 가능하게 했다
실험 결과 5~10명 벤치마크에서 목표 맥락 얼굴 닮음도 최고치(0.499)를 기록했고, 요청된 인물의 97.3%를 빠짐없이 만들면서 중복 얼굴 비율은 2.8%에 불과했다
복사-붙여넣기 티(0.055)도 비교 대상 중 가장 낮아, 단순히 참고 얼굴을 그대로 오려붙이지 않고도 닮게 그렸다는 것을 보여준다

Figure 1: Overview of WithEveryone. WithEveryone generates coherent group images from five to ten reference identities. A single model reasons about which references participate, plans identity–layout bindings, person regions, and poses, and generates the image conditioned on that plan, so identity and composition are decided in one context rather than by separate modules.

Figure 2: Group images generated by WithEveryone. The samples cover different group sizes, scene types, and visual styles.

Table 1: Quantitative comparison on our 5–10-person benchmark. All models are scored on the same 210 examples, and the identity similarities are averaged over the three face encoders of the main protocol. Coverage is the fraction of references whose best-matching generated face reaches a similarity of 0.20, and Dup the fraction that collapse onto a face already claimed by another identity. , , and mark the first-, second-, and third-best results; for Copy-Paste only the three methods with the highest Sim(Ref) are ranked, since lower similarity means less copying naturally.
Method	Identity Similarity	Identity Coverage	Generation Quality
Sim(Tgt) ↑	Sim(Ref) ↑	Copy-Paste ↓	Coverage ↑	Dup ↓	CLIP-I ↑	DINO-I ↑	CLIP-T ↑
Academic identity-preserving methods
WithAnyone	0.405	0.483	0.096	0.957	0.045	0.807	0.695	0.281
UMO	0.371	0.484	0.112	0.630	0.258	0.780	0.663	0.286
UniPortrait	0.339	0.464	0.115	0.635	0.187	0.679	0.415	0.301
DreamO	0.297	0.331	0.027	0.298	0.299	0.724	0.611	0.282
ID-Patch	0.225	0.259	0.032	0.247	0.224	0.609	0.320	0.331
Open-source general-purpose models
FLUX.2 Klein	0.264	0.265	0.002	0.314	0.265	0.787	0.685	0.291
Qwen-Image-Edit	0.253	0.289	0.018	0.176	0.291	0.614	0.312	0.227
LongCat-Image-Edit	0.287	0.288	−0.001	0.381	0.264	0.802	0.657	0.288
OmniGen2	0.267	0.275	−0.002	0.418	0.267	0.774	0.633	0.288
SenseNova U1	0.253	0.243	−0.009	0.213	0.256	0.797	0.686	0.289
BAGEL	0.223	0.225	0.003	0.136	0.276	0.752	0.635	0.282
HiDream-O1	0.353	0.376	0.026	0.780	0.190	0.806	0.692	0.286
Proprietary systems
Nano Banana Pro	0.453	0.478	0.041	0.674	0.148	0.839	0.712	0.275
Nano Banana 2	0.451	0.480	0.045	0.884	0.099	0.860	0.731	0.276
GPT-Image 2	0.462	0.583	0.169	0.905	0.075	0.853	0.719	0.270
Seedream 4.5	0.407	0.495	0.114	0.859	0.175	0.829	0.698	0.286
Seedream 5.0 Pro	0.436	0.522	0.114	0.913	0.065	0.850	0.715	0.275
WithEveryone	0.499	0.540	0.055	0.973	0.028	0.861	0.716	0.273

Figure 3: Overview of WithEveryone. The model loads selected reference identities as ID tokens, predicts structured Layout CoT, renders a visual layout condition, and predicts identity representations before generating the target group image. Modality-switch tokens that mark the boundaries between autoregressive reasoning and flow-based image generation are used in the sequence but omitted from the figure.

Figure 4: Data statistics, pipeline, and example. We report the distributions of identity occurrence frequency, reference count, and real photographs versus collage and poster images; the data-construction pipeline; and an example training sample. The corpus contains 400K group-image samples, and the reference-count distribution covers the five-to-ten-person range used at evaluation time.

Table 3: Dispersion of the main comparison. Per-example means on the 210 benchmark examples with their standard errors. The last column is the single-encoder ArcFace similarity to the references used in Section 4.2.
Method	Sim(Tgt) ↑	Sim(Ref) ↑	CLIP-I ↑	ArcFace Sim(Ref) ↑
WithEveryone	0.499±0.004	0.540±0.004	0.861±0.004	0.614±0.005
GPT-Image 2	0.462±0.004	0.583±0.008	0.853±0.004	0.566±0.009
Nano Banana 2	0.451±0.005	0.480±0.007	0.860±0.004	0.471±0.008
Seedream 5.0 Pro	0.436±0.005	0.522±0.008	0.850±0.004	0.506±0.009

Figure 6: Qualitative comparison with proprietary models. , , and mark faces that reproduce a person already generated elsewhere in the image, that are not recognizable as their bound reference, and that appear transplanted without adapting to the pose, lighting, or viewpoint of the scene. These author annotations are illustrative; their quantitative counterparts are the duplicate rate, Sim(Ref), and Copy-Paste.

Figure 7: Identity similarity against face size. Curves are local means with 95% confidence bands, annotated with the fitted slope. The lower panel of (a) shows the distribution of relative face size for each group size, and the lower panel of (b) shows the face-size distribution of each system.

Table 4: High-resolution comparison. The first two rows use the same internal pipeline; the last row uses the main 2K benchmark pipeline.
Train / test	Sim(Ref) ↑	Sim(Tgt) ↑	Layout∗ ↑	Plan IoU ↑
1K / 1K	0.546	0.460	0.740	0.773
2K / 1K	0.555	0.461	0.759	0.814
2K / 2K†	0.614	0.511	–	–

(b) Absolute face size in pixels; the dashed line marks 112 px, the input resolution of the ArcFace encoder, below which a face has to be upsampled before it can be compared.

Figure 10: Additional group images generated by WithEveryone.

Table 5: Effect of the LG-ID Loss. It gives the largest individual identity gain while preserving or improving all reported layout measures.
Variant	Sim(Ref) ↑	Sim(Tgt) ↑	Layout ↑	Count ↑	Coverage ↑
Default	0.339	0.304	0.690	0.771	0.741
+ ID Loss	0.506	0.435	0.700	0.845	0.947
Full	0.555	0.461	0.759	0.869	0.960

Figure 11: Additional group images generated by WithEveryone.

Figure 12: High-resolution training. We compare the Full model trained at 1K and 2K while evaluating both at 1K. The horizontal references in (a) show the final 2K benchmark scores from a different evaluation pipeline.

왜 중요한가

단체 사진, 광고 포스터, 콜라주처럼 여러 사람이 함께 나오는 이미지를 AI로 만드는 수요가 늘고 있는데, 기존 기술은 사람 수가 늘면 급격히 품질이 떨어졌다. 이 연구는 '계획을 먼저 세우고 그린다'는 접근이 대규모 인원의 정체성 보존 문제를 실제로 해결할 수 있음을 보여준다.

(b) Planning quality and plan execution.

Figure 13: Representation Forcing convergence. The supervised identity prediction is steadily optimized during training and becomes increasingly aligned with both the target and reference identity embeddings.

이 논문의 용어

정체성 보존 생성(Identity-preserving generation) · 특정 인물의 얼굴을 참고 이미지로 주고 그 사람과 닮게 새 이미지를 생성하는 기술
복사-붙여넣기 아티팩트(Copy-Paste) · 생성된 얼굴이 조명이나 각도에 맞춰 자연스럽게 그려지지 않고 참고 사진을 그대로 오려붙인 것처럼 어색하게 나오는 현상
Layout CoT · 이미지를 그리기 전에 인물의 위치, 자세, 신원 배정을 문장 형태로 단계별로 예측하는 계획 과정
ArcFace · 얼굴 사진을 숫자 벡터로 바꿔 두 얼굴이 얼마나 닮았는지 계산하는 얼굴 인식 모델
ID 토큰 · 특정 인물의 얼굴 정보를 압축해 모델이 인식할 수 있는 하나의 신호로 만든 것

논문 원문 초록 (영문)

Identity-preserving image generation becomes increasingly unreliable when a scene must contain many specified people. Beyond retaining each identity, the model must bind every reference to a distinct person and location, while training-time identity losses must establish correspondence among several noisy predicted faces. We introduce WithEveryone, a unified framework for generating group images up to ten reference identities. WithEveryone injects each selected identity as an addressed token, predicts a structured identity--layout plan, and renders the plan as a visual condition. Its key objective, Layout-Grounded ID Loss, uses annotated face regions to supervise the intended identities directly, avoiding unstable embedding-based face matching; ID Representation Forcing additionally trains a prediction for each identity before image synthesis. On an identity-disjoint benchmark, WithEveryone achieves the highest target-context identity similarity, improving face similarity from 0.462 for GPT-Image-2 to 0.499, while reducing copy-paste artifacts from 0.169 to 0.055. It further covers 97.3\% of the requested identities with a duplicate rate of only 2.8\%. These results show that explicit identity--layout grounding enables identity-preserving generation to scale to larger groups without relying on direct reference-face copying.

저자 · Hengyuan Xu

arXiv에서 원문 보기

METAL LAB 최신 기사

그림 출처: Hengyuan Xu et al., arXiv:2608.20336, cc-by-nc-sa-4.0

WithEveryone: Unified Planning and Identity Grounding for Group Image Generation

무엇을 했나

왜 중요한가

이 논문의 용어

최신 논문

METAL LAB 최신 기사