Papers › Dotting the Eye: An Intent-Driven Image Retouching Agent for Visual Focus Enhancement
Dotting the Eye: An Intent-Driven Image Retouching Agent for Visual Focus Enhancement
Chujie Qin, Zilong Zhang, Zewei Chang, Chunle Guo, Ruixing Wang, Tao Hu, Ming-Ming Cheng, Chongyi Li
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Image retouching is commonly formulated as enhancing overall visual quality through color adjustment, but in practice, it also serves to emphasize visual focus by guiding viewers' attention toward a specific subject or region. Achieving such focus-oriented retouching is inherently challenging, as it requires well-coordinated global and local adjustments to manipulate perceptual saliency while maintaining visual naturalness. This intricate process typically demands substantial professional expertise. In this study, we propose EyeControl, a MLLM-driven agent with a diffusion-based retouching executor that enables visual focus enhancement under weak user intent. With only a few clicks or coarse strokes, EyeControl directs visual attention to the intended region, effectively "dotting the eye" of the image. The core idea is to explicitly link the weak user intention with the target editing region and the corresponding tonal adjustment operations during retouching. To achieve this, the system first interprets the intent and image content to infer the visual focus and generate structured intent guidance for the retouching executor. Second, the retouching executor is encouraged to respond more strongly to the target region, explicitly aligning its attention map with a designed pseudo-intent map. We also introduce an operation-consistency constraint to improve coordination between global and local adjustments, achieving more natural and coherent retouching. Additionally, we contribute ControlArt-Bench, a high-quality evaluation dataset for visual focus enhancement. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that EyeControl yields perceptually appealing results with stronger intent alignment. Code can be found in https://github.com/DragonisCV/EyeControl.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2609.01148")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 19 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 17 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · violated contract; 1 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 19 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
19 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 17 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 19 of the 19 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from DragonisCV/EyeControl. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
4e3ad3679e5c37b2 · report
0b56680ee1708fee · report
a69c968fe0bfe0bd · report
1bc82698693d330e · report
212f670149d23d38 · report
26c3f9e550311287 · report
9c0fcf221236c506 · report
28a7c6dea6157b37 · report
7a2b7e9e78798c6e · report
c783becaedcc28ff · report
43dcb2ea0910ffd9 · report
94b22546ce188345 · report
26e097f30303796a · report
98bcd15cf273e3b4 · report
f073c3ba6a91a9df · report
a2015d0508d885aa · report
eb4f8a321d97a458 · report
d20300236fb9e8fd · report
d81381b327c76edd · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2609.01148, was issued in September 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections