mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Imag-Eval: a language-grounded framework for interpretable Text-to-Image instruction following evaluation

arXiv 2608.29210 ↗First posted 29 Aug 2026cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Text-to-Image (T2I) models have recently achieved impressive visual fidelity, yet their evaluation remains constrained by benchmarks that are often difficult to interpret and insufficiently diagnostic. Existing skill-based evaluations tend to overlook critical failure modes that strongly impact usability but fall outside standard taxonomies, such as global incoherence arising from missing parts or physically implausible configurations (e.g., floating objects). In addition, prompt difficulty is typically controlled along a single dimension; either prompt length or the number of elements to generate. To address these limitations, we introduce Imag-Eval, a controlled benchmark designed to assess how T2I models ground compositional natural-language instructions into visual outputs. Unlike prior work that conflates surface linguistic complexity with compositional difficulty, Imag-Eval explicitly seeks to disentangles these factors by independently varying both the number of instances and the combination of constraints (rules), while avoiding error propagation. This design enables fine-grained and interpretable analysis of where cross-modal instruction following fails. Our benchmark comprises 1,140 prompts and 8,842 combined rules, and we evaluate it on several state-of-the-art models. Complementing this analysis with an additional study of over 2,000 prompts from a concurrent benchmark, our results suggest that, for structured skills, compositional difficulty is primarily governed by the number of grounded rules and their binding to instances,, rather than by prompt length alone.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Aug 2026.

Builds on

17 of 43 references.

References · 17

  1. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  2. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  3. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  4. 2022Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Language Understandingcited by 6,322
  5. 2023SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 4,290
  6. 2013Auto-Encoding Variational Bayescited by 3,980
  7. 2021CLIPScore: A Reference-free Evaluation Metric for Image Captioningcited by 2,388
  8. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  9. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  10. 2024MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmarkcited by 362
  11. 2025Z-Image: An Efficient Image Generation Foundation Model with Single-Stream Diffusion Transformercited by 247
  12. 2022DALL-Eval: Probing the Reasoning Skills and Social Biases of Text-to-Image Generation Modelscited by 230
5 more
  1. 2025TIIF-Bench: How Does Your T2I Model Follow Your Instructions?cited by 64
  2. 2026Ultralytics YOLO26: Unified Real-Time End-to-End Vision Modelscited by 47
  3. 2022Human Evaluation of Text-to-Image Models on a Multi-Task Benchmarkcited by 41
  4. 2025Automated Capability Evaluation of Foundation Modelscited by 3
  5. 2024BodyMetric: Evaluating the Realism of Human Bodies in Text-to-Image Generationcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.