Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

GLDesigner: Leveraging Multi-Modal LLMs as Designer for Enhanced Aesthetic Text Glyph Layouts

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A vision-language model generates text-logo layouts that beat the prior GAN method on quality and human preference.

desk verdict A useful VLM-based text-logo layout generator with two new datasets, but the headline comparison overstates the win until the baseline is retrained on the same data. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11435 v2 pith:WUEHCE45 submitted 2024-11-18 cs.CV

Junwen He , Yifan Wang , Lijun Wang , Huchuan Lu , Jun-Yan He , Chenyang Li , Hanyuan Chen , Jin-Peng Lan
show 2 more authors
Bin Luo Yifeng Geng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords textglyphlayoutlogogenerationvision-languagemodelinstructiontuningcollisionuserconstraintsdatasets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that text-logo layout generation, the arrangement of the glyphs of a phrase into a legible and aesthetically pleasing composition, can be reframed as an instruction-following problem for a vision-language model. It introduces GLDesigner, which takes the glyph images, their character texts, and an optional natural-language constraint, and emits a JSON bounding-box layout for every glyph. The authors claim this approach beats the existing GAN-based method on FID, glyph-overlap, visual-balance, and aspect-ratio metrics, and that humans prefer its constrained outputs 68.3% to 39.5% with a much lower constraint-violation rate. Two new datasets, five times larger than the previous public one, supply the instruction-tuning data, including per-glyph natural-language layout descriptions that the model uses to reason step by step. If the claim holds, text-logo design becomes a controllable, language-driven process rather than a geometric regression from a fixed template.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a fine-tuned vision-language model with three coordinated parts. Early Feature Fusion adds an early-layer visual feature stream from the glyph encoder, with a zero-initialized two-layer MLP, so stroke and texture details survive alongside the high-level CLIP features. Adaptive Average Pooling downsamples the visual tokens, cutting the visual token count by a factor of 62 when several glyphs are processed at once, which is what makes multi-glyph input practical. The output side is a structured JSON layout in which each glyph has a word, a bounding box, and a 'detail' field that describes the glyph's role in the composition; this detail field implements a chain-of-thought style reasoning step. The prompt template ties these together by giving the model the task description, the glyph images and texts, the optional user constraint, and an empty JSON skeleton to fill in.

What would settle it

Run a held-out evaluation in which fresh human designers rate GLDesigner's constrained outputs against the GAN baseline and measure constraint violations on the full test set; if the preference gap and violation rates do not reproduce the reported 68.3%/39.5% and 0.11/0.57, the central claim fails. A second, sharper test is to retrain the model without the 'detail' descriptions on a new dataset and check whether FID and IoU degrade as much as in the paper's ablation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a pre-trained vision-language model fine-tuned on layout instructions can act as a text-logo designer: it understands glyph images and text as coupled inputs, reasons about reading order and visual balance, and produces layouts in a standard JSON format that render cleanly. The reported results position GLDesigner ahead of the previous GAN-based method, TextLogo3K, with FID 33.48 versus 44.48 on the shared test set and 26.22 versus 57.82 on the paper's new real-world dataset, while also reducing glyph-collision IoU, improving visual balance, and holding glyph aspect ratios closer to their original shapes. Under user constraints, the model's violation rate is 0.11 versus 0.57 for the prompt-tuned baseline, and human evaluators prefer its outputs 68.3% versus 39.5% of the time. These numbers are the evidence for the paper's claim that a VLM-based designer generalizes to long text and user-defined layouts where the prior method fails.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the automatically generated, LLM-and-human-filtered 'detail' layout descriptions are accurate enough to teach real layout reasoning, yet the paper reports no annotator counts, agreement rates, or fraction of corrected descriptions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long text sequences stop being a hard failure mode: the model can lay out seven or more glyphs in one pass, a regime where the GAN baseline degrades.
  • User constraints expressed in natural language are honored at inference time, so the same model can produce horizontal, vertical, overlapping, or balanced arrangements from the same text.
  • The 62x reduction in visual tokens makes VLM-based glyph layout viable for interactive design tools, since training finishes in 12 hours on eight V100 GPUs and inference is fast.
  • The new datasets, with pixel masks and per-glyph descriptions, give the community a larger instruction-tuning resource than the existing public benchmark.
  • When combined with font generation and texture interpolation, the layout model completes an automatic pipeline from raw text to a styled, textured text logo.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not isolate whether the 'detail' descriptions matter because they teach genuine layout reasoning or because they simply add distributional variety; a train/test split on entirely new font families would separate these.
  • Because the output is structured JSON, the same instruction-following recipe could be carried over to other fine-grained visual arrangement tasks, such as poster or infographic layouts with per-element constraints, without new architectural work; the paper only demonstrates text logos.
  • The human-preference figures come from the authors' annotation setup; an independent panel of professional designers could plausibly rank the methods differently, especially for stylized or culturally specific typography.
  • The constraint-violation metric is tested on 50 sampled layouts, so the 0.11 figure is a small-sample estimate; collecting violation rates over the full test set would give a more stable number.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GLDesigner, a vision-language-model-based framework for text logo layout generation. It builds on LLaVA-1.5 with two efficiency-oriented modifications: Early Feature Fusion, which incorporates earlier CLIP features for finer glyph detail, and Adaptive Average Pooling, which reduces the number of visual tokens. The model outputs bounding boxes in JSON, optionally conditioned on natural-language layout constraints. The authors also introduce two datasets, SynTextLogo and GenTextLogo, totaling roughly 17k samples with bounding boxes, masks, character labels, and natural-language layout descriptions. Experiments compare GLDesigner against the GAN-based TextLogo method [38] and rule-based baselines on the TextLogo3K and GenTextLogo test sets, reporting FID, overlap IoU, visual balance, glyph-ratio consistency, and a user study.

Significance. If the empirical claims are properly supported, GLDesigner would be a useful step for text-logo layout: it is the first VLM-based approach for this task, demonstrates handling of long text sequences and user constraints, and contributes datasets that are an order of magnitude richer than the existing public option. The Adaptive Average Pooling result (-86% computational cost) is a practical and clearly evaluated contribution, and the matched comparison on TextLogo3K (ours† FID 38.73 vs TextLogo† 44.48) suggests a real architectural improvement. However, the current manuscript overstates the evidence: several head-to-head comparisons are confounded by training-data mismatch and by differences in glyph-input preprocessing, and the main configuration reported in the tables has higher pixel-level overlap than the baseline, in tension with the paper's collision-reduction claim. The contribution is plausible but requires re-analysis and a more careful framing before it can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3, Table 4 and Table 5] The comparison against TextLogo on GenTextLogo is confounded by training-domain mismatch. GLDesigner is trained on the GenTextLogo training split (in addition to SynTextLogo and TextLogo3K), while the reported TextLogo† baseline is the released TextLogo3K-trained model; the † marker only denotes tight-cropped preprocessing and does not indicate retraining on the new dataset. The FID gap (26.22 vs 57.82) therefore conflates model superiority with access to in-distribution training data. The same issue affects the user study in Table 5, where the ground-truth samples come from GenTextLogo and TextLogo* is only prompt-tuned, not retrained. To support the claim of outperforming existing methods, the authors should either retrain TextLogo on the same training split, or restrict the headline comparison to TextLogo3K where both models are trained on the target domain. Without this, the 'state-of-the-art' claim is not established.
  2. [§5.1 and Tables 3-4] The headline 'ours' rows use square-padded glyph inputs, whereas the baseline TextLogo† and the matched 'ours†' rows use tightly-cropped inputs. This mixes the input preprocessing choice with the model difference. The matched comparison ('ours†' vs 'TextLogo†') on TextLogo3K gives FID 38.73 vs 44.48 and IoU 6.21 vs 6.33, which is a meaningful but much smaller and partially offset by worse overlap than the headline numbers suggest. Please present the matched comparison as the primary one, or explicitly justify why a direct comparison between different preprocessing formats is appropriate for the central claim.
  3. [Tables 3, 4 and Sections 1, 4.2] The paper repeatedly claims that GLDesigner reduces glyph collisions, but the reported Overlap IoU for the preferred 'ours' configuration (square-padded inputs) is substantially worse than TextLogo†: 17.67 vs 6.33 on TextLogo3K and 19.84 vs 13.55 on GenTextLogo. Only the tight-crop variant ('ours†') achieves IoU comparable to or better than the baseline. The manuscript does not mention this strong trade-off between FID and overlap, nor does it reconcile the collision-reduction wording with the numbers. Please address this directly, for instance by reporting results for both input formats in all summaries and discussing why the square-padded format, which the paper favors, produces more overlap.
  4. [§5.5 and §5.2 (ViO)] The user study and constraint-violation metric are reported without any statistical detail. There is no information on the number of participants or annotators, their agreement, the composition of the sampled 50 layouts, or confidence intervals for the preference rates (68.3% vs 39.5%) and quality scores (3.4 vs 2.5). Without these, the subjective and ViO results are not quantitatively assessable, and the differences may not be significant. Please add the missing statistical information or soften the corresponding conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'outperforms all existing methods' overstates the evidence: the only learned baseline is TextLogo [38]; general layout-generation methods are discussed in Related Work but not compared empirically. Suggest rewording to 'outperforms the previous text-logo method'.
  2. [§5.2] The Visual Balance metric is cited from PosterLLaVA [41], but the manuscript does not state whether a lower value is always better or how the metric is normalized. A one-sentence clarification would improve reproducibility.
  3. [§4.3] The filtering pipeline for textual layout descriptions uses cross-verification with LLMs and human annotators, but the number of annotators, the fraction of descriptions corrected, and the inter-annotator agreement are not reported. Since the ablation in Table 6 shows only a small effect of the 'detail' annotations, this omission does not change the main conclusions, but it would be useful for dataset-release transparency.
  4. [Table 6] The 'detail' row shows mixed signals: FID improves (26.22 to 26.00), IoU improves slightly (19.84 to 19.51), but Glyph Ratio Consistency worsens (16.72 to 16.94). Please include a brief discussion of this trade-off in the ablation analysis.
  5. [References] In reference [38], the author list contains 'Yexin ans Xiong', which appears to be a typo for 'Yexin and Xiong' or 'Yexin ... Xiong'. Please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central layout-generation claim is grounded in an external benchmark and the self-generated textual annotations are auxiliary supervision, not the evaluation target.

full rationale

The paper follows a standard supervised pipeline: it constructs datasets with geometric and textual annotations, fine-tunes LLaVA with two efficiency techniques, and evaluates on held-out splits using FID, IS, IoU, Visual Balance, Glyph Ratio Consistency, ViO, and user preference. The strongest external grounding is Table 3 on TextLogo3K, where GLDesigner improves FID from 44.48 to 33.48 against a model trained on that same benchmark, so the headline result does not reduce to the paper's own training inputs. The Table 4 comparison on GenTextLogo is potentially unfair because the TextLogo baseline was not retrained on the new dataset, but that is a comparison-validity concern rather than definitional circularity. The 'detail' layout descriptions in Section 4.3 are generated by external off-the-shelf VLMs and filtered by LLMs and human annotators; they serve as chain-of-thought training targets, and the Table 6 ablation shows only a small change (FID 26.22 to 26.00), so the claimed reasoning benefit is not forced by construction. The only self-citation, WordArt Designer [12], appears in a texture-interpolation demo (Figure 7) and is not load-bearing for the layout-generation claim. Unquantified human-annotator statistics for the detail filtering and user studies are reproducibility limitations, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The central claim rests on the validity of the evaluation metrics and the accuracy of the auto-generated textual layout annotations, neither of which is independently verified.

free parameters (1)
  • CLIP layer index for early feature fusion = second-to-last layer
    Chosen based on experimental results (Sec 5.2.1 / Sec 5.4); not derived from first principles, and ablating it may change performance.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption FID and Inception Score are valid measures of text logo layout quality
    Used as primary quantitative metrics in Sec 5.2; these are generic image distribution metrics and may not capture geometric aesthetics.
  • domain assumption Auto-generated layout descriptions filtered by LLM cross-verification and human annotators are accurate enough to serve as training targets
    Sec 4.3 describes filtering but does not quantify human effort, agreement, or error rate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GLDesigner: Leveraging Multi-Modal LLMs as Designer for Enhanced Aesthetic Text Glyph Layouts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WUEHCE45

@misc{pith2026241111435,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GLDesigner: Leveraging Multi-Modal LLMs as Designer for Enhanced Aesthetic Text Glyph Layouts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WUEHCE45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11435}
}
read the original abstract

Text logo design heavily relies on the creativity and expertise of professional designers, in which arranging element layouts is one of the most important procedures. However, this specific task has received limited attention, often overshadowed by broader layout generation tasks such as document or poster design. In this paper, we propose a Vision-Language Model (VLM)-based framework that generates content-aware text logo layouts by integrating multi-modal inputs with user-defined constraints, enabling more flexible and robust layout generation for real-world applications. We introduce two model techniques that reduce the computational cost for processing multiple glyph images simultaneously, without compromising performance. To support instruction tuning of our model, we construct two extensive text logo datasets that are five times larger than existing public datasets. In addition to geometric annotations (\textit{e.g.}, text masks and character recognition), our datasets include detailed layout descriptions in natural language, enabling the model to reason more effectively in handling complex designs and custom user inputs. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework and datasets, outperforming existing methods on various benchmarks that assess geometric aesthetics and human preferences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11435 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrated are examples of text logos from our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline Overview of the Text Logo Layout Generation Method. For clarity and simplicity, vision-language projection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Textual Layout Description complemented by our data processing pipeline in Section 4.3. We provide detailed textual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons of Unconstrained Layout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pipeline of synthesizing text logos by combing with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Think, Plan, Paint: Layout-Aware Reasoning for Controllable Image Generation in Unified Models

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ATLAS adds a Think–Plan–Paint loop with shared positional tokens to unified MLLMs, plus RL-based layout alignment, achieving large reported gains over prior layout-based unified models on compositional image generatio...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [38]

    Yizhi Wang, Gu Pu, Wenhan Luo, Pengfei Wang, Yexin ans Xiong, Hongwen Kang, Zhonghao Wang, and Zhouhui Lian. 2022. Aesthetic Text Logo Synthesis via Content-aware Layout Inferring. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Anthropic. 2024. Introducing the next generation of Claude. https://www. anthropic.com/news/claude-3-family

    2024

  3. [2]

    Diego Martin Arroyo, Janis Postels, and Federico Tombari. 2021. Variational transformer networks for layout generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 13642–13652

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shijie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. 2023. Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Understanding, Localization, Text Reading, and Beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Yunning Cao, Ye Ma, Min Zhou, Chuanbin Liu, Hongtao Xie, Tiezheng Ge, and Yuning Jiang. 2022. Geometry aligned variational transformer for image- conditioned layout generation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 1561–1571

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Jingye Chen, Yupan Huang, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Qifeng Chen, and Furu Wei

  7. [7]

    Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Ping Luo, Tong Lu, Yu Qiao, and Jifeng Dai. 2023. InternVL: Scaling up Vision Foundation Models and Aligning for Generic Visual-Linguistic Tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14238 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Weixi Feng, Wanrong Zhu, Tsu-jui Fu, Varun Jampani, Arjun Akula, Xuehai He, Sugato Basu, Xin Eric Wang, and William Yang Wang. 2024. Layoutgpt: Compo- sitional visual planning and generation with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Kamal Gupta, Justin Lazarow, Alessandro Achille, Larry S Davis, Vijay Mahade- van, and Abhinav Shrivastava. 2021. Layouttransformer: Layout generation and completion with self-attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 1004–1014

    2021

  4. [12]

    Jun-Yan He, Zhi-Qi Cheng, Chenyang Li, Jingdong Sun, Wangmeng Xiang, Xi- anhui Lin, Xiaoyang Kang, Zengke Jin, Yusen Hu, Bin Luo, et al. 2023. Wordart designer: User-driven artistic typography synthesis using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18332 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. 2017. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Hsiao Yuan Hsu, Xiangteng He, Yuxin Peng, Hao Kong, and Qing Zhang. 2023. Posterlayout: A new benchmark and approach for content-aware visual-textual presentation layout. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 6018–6026

    2023

  7. [15]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Yupan Huang, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Yutong Lu, and Furu Wei. 2022. LayoutLMv3: Pre-training for Document AI with Unified Text and Image Masking. In Proceed- ings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    2022

  9. [17]

    Mude Hui, Zhizheng Zhang, Xiaoyi Zhang, Wenxuan Xie, Yuwang Wang, and Yan Lu. 2023. Unifying layout generation with a decoupled diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 1942–1951

    2023

  10. [18]

    Naoto Inoue, Kotaro Kikuchi, Edgar Simo-Serra, Mayu Otani, and Kota Yamaguchi

  11. [19]

    Zhaoyun Jiang, Jiaqi Guo, Shizhao Sun, Huayu Deng, Zhongkai Wu, Vuksan Mijovic, Zijiang James Yang, Jian-Guang Lou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2023. Lay- outformer++: Conditional graphic layout generation via constraint serialization and decoding space restriction. In Proceedings of t...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Akash Abdu Jyothi, Thibaut Durand, Jiawei He, Leonid Sigal, and Greg Mori. 2019. Layoutvae: Stochastic scene layout generation from a label set. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 9895–9904

    2019

  13. [21]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Layoutdm: Discrete diffusion model for controllable layout generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10167–10176

  14. [22]

    Diederik P Kingma. 2013. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Xiang Kong, Lu Jiang, Huiwen Chang, Han Zhang, Yuan Hao, Haifeng Gong, and Irfan Essa. 2022. Blt: Bidirectional layout transformer for controllable layout generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 474–490

    2022

  16. [24]

    Kotaro Kikuchi, Edgar Simo-Serra, Mayu Otani, and Kota Yamaguchi. 2021. Con- strained Graphic Layout Generation via Latent Optimization. In ACM Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia (MM ’21) . 88–96. doi:10.1145/3474085.3475497

    2021

  17. [25]

    Jianan Li, Jimei Yang, Aaron Hertzmann, Jianming Zhang, and Tingfa Xu. 2019. Layoutgan: Generating graphic layouts with wireframe discriminators. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06767 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Shen Li, Zhe Zhao, Renfen Hu, Wensi Li, Tao Liu, and Xiaoyong Du. 2018. Analog- ical reasoning on chinese morphological and semantic relations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.06504 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 19730–19742

    2023

  20. [28]

    Jiawei Lin, Jiaqi Guo, Shizhao Sun, Zijiang James Yang, Jian-Guang Lou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2023. LayoutPrompter: Awaken the Design Ability of Large Language Models. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  21. [29]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual Instruc- tion Tuning. In NeurIPS

    2023

  22. [30]

    Jiawei Lin, Jiaqi Guo, Shizhao Sun, Weijiang Xu, Ting Liu, Jian-Guang Lou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2023. A parse-then-place approach for generating graphic layouts from textual descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 23622–23631

    2023

  23. [31]

    Chuwei Luo, Yufan Shen, Zhaoqing Zhu, Qi Zheng, Zhi Yu, and Cong Yao. 2024. LayoutLLM: Layout Instruction Tuning with Large Language Models for Doc- ument Understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 15630–15640

    2024

  24. [32]

    OpenAI. 2024. Hello GPT-4o. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

    2024

  25. [33]

    I Loshchilov. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Tim Salimans, Ian Goodfellow, Wojciech Zaremba, Vicki Cheung, Alec Radford, and Xi Chen. 2016. Improved techniques for training gans. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

  28. [36]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learni...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yas- mine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhos- ale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  31. [40]

    Zecheng Tang, Chenfei Wu, Juntao Li, and Nan Duan. 2023. Layoutnuwa: Re- vealing the hidden layout expertise of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.09506 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Tao Yang, Yingmin Luo, Zhongang Qi, Yang Wu, Ying Shan, and Chang Wen Chen. 2024. PosterLLaVa: Constructing a Unified Multi-modal Layout Generator with LLM. arXiv:2406.02884 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02884

    2024 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Linli Yao, Lei Li, Shuhuai Ren, Lean Wang, Yuanxin Liu, Xu Sun, and Lu Hou. 2024. DeCo: Decoupling Token Compression from Semantic Abstraction in Multimodal Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20985 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Ning Yu, Chia-Chih Chen, Zeyuan Chen, Rui Meng, Gang Wu, Paul Josel, Juan Car- los Niebles, Caiming Xiong, and Ran Xu. 2022. LayoutDETR: detection trans- former is a good multimodal layout designer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09877 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Lin Xu, Yilin Zhao, Daquan Zhou, Zhijie Lin, See Kiong Ng, and Jiashi Feng. 2024. Pllava: Parameter-free llava extension from images to videos for video dense captioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16994 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2023. Adding Conditional Control to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models

    2023

  37. [46]

    Min Zhou, Chenchen Xu, Ye Ma, Tiezheng Ge, Yuning Jiang, and Weiwei Xu

  38. [48]

    Junyi Zhang, Jiaqi Guo, Shizhao Sun, Jian-Guang Lou, and Dongmei Zhang

  39. [49]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Layoutdiffusion: Improving graphic layout generation by discrete diffusion probabilistic models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 7226–7236

  40. [2015]

    In International conference on machine learning

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2256–2265

  41. [2022]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00303 (2022)

    Composition-aware graphic layout GAN for visual-textual presentation designs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00303 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  42. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16465 (2023)

    Textdiffuser-2: Unleashing the power of language models for text rendering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16465 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  43. [2024]

    Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    Textdiffuser: Diffusion models as text painters. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.