arXiv:2507.08039cs.CVcs.AI2025-07被引 1

测试文生图模型对提示词的遵循能力,发现其在简单几何图形生成上表现不佳。

Towards Evaluating Robustness of Prompt Adherence in Text to Image Models

  • 构建新数据集,用GPT-4o生成真实图像描述,评估模型对提示的响应一致性。
  • 三种Stable Diffusion和两种Janus模型在二值化几何形状与位置控制上均失败。
  • 使用预训练VAE验证分布匹配性,结果表明模型无法遵循输入数据分布。

近年来,大语言模型(LLM)的发展令人瞩目,展现出强大能力与广泛应用潜力。相比之下,多模态大模型及文生图模型虽近来备受关注,但其可靠性仍受限于性能与鲁棒性评估研究不足。本文旨在建立一个全面的文生图模型评估框架,重点考察模型对提示词的遵循程度。我们构建了一个新数据集,用于评估模型在输入提示中指定的可变因素上的鲁棒性。实验涵盖三种Stable Diffusion模型:Stable Diffusion 3 Medium、Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large 和 Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo,以及两种Janus模型:Janus Pro 1B 和 Janus Pro 7B。我们设计了一条流水线:利用GPT-4o生成真实图像的文本描述作为真实标签,再将这些描述输入文生图模型生成人工图像,随后再次通过GPT-4o分析生成图像并提取描述,比较两次描述间的差异。结果显示,这些模型在生成仅含两个可变因素(简单几何形状及其位置)的二值化图像时表现不佳。此外,基于在本数据集上预训练的变分自编码器(VAE),我们发现模型无法生成符合输入数据分布的图像。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

The advancements in the domain of LLMs in recent years have surprised many, showcasing their remarkable capabilities and diverse applications. Their potential applications in various real-world scenarios have led to significant research on their reliability and effectiveness. On the other hand, multimodal LLMs and Text-to-Image models have only recently gained prominence, especially when compared to text-only LLMs. Their reliability remains constrained due to insufficient research on assessing their performance and robustness. This paper aims to establish a comprehensive evaluation framework for Text-to-Image models, concentrating particularly on their adherence to prompts. We created a novel dataset that aimed to assess the robustness of these models in generating images that conform to the specified factors of variation in the input text prompts. Our evaluation studies present findings on three variants of Stable Diffusion models: Stable Diffusion 3 Medium, Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large, and Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large Turbo, and two variants of Janus models: Janus Pro 1B and Janus Pro 7B. We introduce a pipeline that leverages text descriptions generated by the gpt-4o model for our ground-truth images, which are then used to generate artificial images by passing these descriptions to the Text-to-Image models. We then pass these generated images again through gpt-4o using the same system prompt and compare the variation between the two descriptions. Our results reveal that these models struggle to create simple binary images with only two factors of variation: a simple geometric shape and its location. We also show, using pre-trained VAEs on our dataset, that they fail to generate images that follow our input dataset distribution.

文生图提示遵循鲁棒性评估Stable Diffusion

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。