# Benchmarking Frontier Text-to-Image Models on Image-Description Prompts

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14976 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14976/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11487/) (2022)
- [Scaling Autoregressive Models for Content-Rich Text-to-Image Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.10789/) (2022)
- [T2I-CompBench++: An Enhanced and Comprehensive Benchmark for Compositional Text-to-image Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.06350/) (2023)
- [Holistic Evaluation of Text-To-Image Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04287/) (2023)
- [R2I-Bench: Benchmarking Reasoning-Driven Text-to-Image Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23493/) (2025)
- [FineGRAIN: Evaluating Failure Modes of Text-to-Image Models with Vision Language Model Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02161/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Beyond Fluency: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating Saudi Dialect and Cultural Competence in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29990/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Text-to-image models are typically reported on average-case prompts, which understates the gap between systems on compositionally demanding requests involving precise object counts, multi-object attribute binding, legible embedded text, and explicit spatial constraints. We evaluate four production text-to-image systems: Hunyuan 3.0, Gemini 3 Pro Image ("Nano Banana Pro"), Black Forest Labs FLUX.2, and Ideogram 3.0. The evaluation uses the 48 hardest prompts drawn from the DataSeeds.AI Sample Dataset (DSD), selected through an automated complexity-scoring pass over the full corpus. Every generated image is graded using an independent-judge rubric. GPT-5.4-Pro authors an atomic, weighted, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE) evaluation rubric, while Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview independently determines whether each criterion is satisfied. Gemini 3 Pro Image ranks first with a score of 84.8/100, narrowly ahead of FLUX.2 at 82.3/100. Ideogram 3.0 and Hunyuan 3.0 score 65.7/100 and 63.3/100, respectively. Failure analysis shows that the leading systems primarily lose points through object miscounting and geometric artifacts, whereas the trailing systems more frequently produce garbled text. Ideogram 3.0 also frequently omits requested elements. Full per-sample rubrics, scores, and failure annotations are available from the authors upon request.