Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 53 references

AI-Generated Lecture Slides for Improving Slide Element Detection and Retrieval

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LLM-generated synthetic slides can replace much of the manual annotation needed to train slide detection and retrieval models.

desk verdict A useful synthetic-slide pipeline and benchmark, but the headline benefit of synthetic pre-training is confounded with extra data volume. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23605 v1 pith:5UCKPOQA submitted 2025-06-30 cs.CV cs.AI

Suyash Maniyar , Vishvesh Trivedi , Ajoy Mondal , Anand Mishra , C.V. Jawahar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords LectureSlideUnderstandingElementDetectionText-basedRetrievalSyntheticGenerationFew-ShotTransferLearningLargeLanguageModel
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

An LLM-guided pipeline, SynLecSlideGen, generates realistic synthetic lecture slides with automatic bounding-box and summary annotations, and the paper claims that models pre-trained on these synthetic slides and then fine-tuned on a small set of real slides beat models trained on real slides alone. The authors build two resources: SynSlide, a synthetic dataset of 4,400 slides, and RealSlide, a manually annotated benchmark of 1,050 real lecture slides covering both slide element detection and text-based retrieval. In the low-resource detection setting with only 50 real training images, pre-training on synthetic slides improves YOLOv9's mAP from 23.3 to 33.0, with the biggest gains on rare classes such as code snippets (+32.5 mAP) and natural images (+20.2 mAP). For retrieval, CLIP fine-tuned on synthetic slides reaches an R@1 of 43 on RealSlide, three points above fine-tuning on 300 in-domain real slides. If the claim is right, synthetic data can substitute for large amounts of manual annotation in lecture slide understanding.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is SynLecSlideGen, a three-phase pipeline that converts textbook indexes into fully annotated slide images. In Phase I, GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 are chained to generate topics, outlines, per-slide element suggestions, and text or LaTeX or Python content, while diagrams are retrieved from the web through a search API. Phase II assigns one of 18 predefined layouts based on the number of body elements, perturbs element positions with Gaussian noise, and randomizes styles and meta-elements such as footers, slide numbers, and logos. Phase III renders PowerPoint files with python-pptx, converts them to images, and derives COCO-format bounding-box annotations and two types of slide summaries directly from the JSON content, eliminating manual annotation. On the real side, RealSlide contributes 1,050 manually annotated slides with 16 element classes and retrieval queries; the two-stage fine-tuning protocol—synthetic first, then small amounts of real data—is the experimental mechanism that tests the value of the synthetic resource.

What would settle it

Run a matched-volume control: fine-tune the detector on 2,250 real images (2,200 additional real slides plus 50) and compare against the two-stage condition with 2,200 synthetic plus 50 real images; if mAP is equal or higher in the real-only condition, the synthetic-data advantage does not survive equal data volume.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that synthetic slides are a viable substitute for labeled real slides in low-supervision training of slide understanding models. Two-stage fine-tuning—first on 2,200 synthetic SynDet slides, then on a small subset of real RealSlide images—consistently outperforms single-stage fine-tuning on real images only for all three tested detectors (YOLOv9, LayoutLMv3, DETR). With 50 real images, the two-stage protocol raises macro mAP from 23.3 to 33.0 on YOLOv9, and element-wise analysis attributes the gain mostly to low-frequency classes: code jumps from 2.1 to 34.6 mAP, natural images from 0.7 to 20.9, table captions from 0 to 11.8. For text-based slide retrieval, fine-tuning CLIP on the synthetic SynRet set achieves an R@1 of 43 on the RealSlide test set, outperforming fine-tuning on 300 real in-domain slides (R@1 40) and the prior synthetic dataset DreamStruct (R@1 42). The authors conclude that synthetic slides, though distributionally imperfect (FID 42.5 vs 18.4 for real slides), contribute enough layout and content signal to bootstrap models in data-scarce regimes.

Load-bearing premise

The headline comparison gives the two-stage model 2,200 extra synthetic images while the single-stage model gets no extra images, so the measured gain may come from data volume rather than from anything special about synthetic slides.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With as few as 50 real training images, two-stage fine-tuning through synthetic slides improves mean average precision across all three detection models, with the largest class-level gains on the elements that are rarest in real slides.
  • Fine-tuning CLIP on synthetic slides alone outperforms fine-tuning on 300 real in-domain slides for retrieval on RealSlide, which means manual query annotation for retrieval can be partially replaced by synthetic summaries.
  • The RealSlide benchmark, combining dense element detection and retrieval annotations on the same 1,050 slides, provides a multi-task evaluation target that did not exist for lecture slides.
  • Scaling the synthetic set from 2,200 to 16,000 images yields only a small additional gain (macro mAP from 38.8 to 40.3 with 300 real images), so the usefulness of synthetic pre-training saturates as image volume grows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported 9.7 mAP gain compares a two-stage condition that includes 2,200 synthetic images with a single-stage condition that includes only 50 real images; because no matched-size control is given, a reader cannot yet separate the effect of synthetic data from the effect of having more training images in total.
  • The retrieval advantage of synthetic-only fine-tuning over real-only fine-tuning is 3 points in R@1, and the paper notes that adding real slides after synthetic pre-training adds little, which suggests synthetic data acts as a strong prior that real data refines only weakly.
  • The pipeline's stated limitations—static 18-layout templates, limited content depth, and separate annotation functions per task—suggest natural extensions such as diffusion-based layout generation or iterative selection of harder synthetic slides, which would test whether closing the FID gap further improves transfer.
  • The class-wise improvement pattern implies that synthetic data helps most where real annotations are scarce, so the same pipeline may transfer to other long-tail document layout tasks, although the paper does not claim this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SynLecSlideGen, a three-phase LLM-guided pipeline for generating synthetic lecture slides with automatic annotations, and releases two resources: SynSlide (2,200 synthetic slides for detection and 2,200 for retrieval) and RealSlide (1,050 manually annotated real lecture slides). The authors evaluate the utility of synthetic pretraining in two tasks: slide element detection (SED) with YOLOv9, LayoutLMv3, and DETR, and text-based slide image retrieval (TSIR) with CLIP. The central empirical claim is that two-stage fine-tuning (first on synthetic slides, then on real slides) outperforms single-stage fine-tuning on real data alone, and that synthetic data can therefore compensate for scarce manual annotations. The paper reports, for example, a 9.7 mAP improvement for YOLOv9 when only 50 real images are used, and a 3-point R@1 improvement for CLIP-based retrieval on RealSlide.

Significance. If the central claim is established, this is a useful contribution: it provides an open-source synthetic generation pipeline, a new real benchmark with dense annotations, and evidence that synthetic lecture slides could reduce annotation cost for slide understanding models. The paper's strengths include public release of code and data, a multi-class detection benchmark with 16 classes, a domain comparison via FID scores, and an appendix documenting scaling behavior and limitations. However, the main experiment conflates synthetic data with additional training volume, and the retrieval comparison is similarly confounded. The reported improvements are plausible but not yet demonstrated to be caused by the synthetic nature of the data rather than by the sheer increase in number of training examples.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Fig. 5, Table 5, and Appendix C.4 (Table 2)] The headline comparison between Single Stage (SS) and Two Stage (TS) confounds synthetic pretraining with extra data volume. TS uses 2,200 synthetic images plus the real fine-tuning set; SS uses only the real set. No matched-size baseline is provided, such as SS trained on the same total number of images (e.g., repeated real data, additional unlabeled real slides, or additional synthetic images used without the two-stage recipe). The paper's own scaling results in Appendix C.4, Table 2 show that increasing only the synthetic data from 2,200 to 16,000 images yields +1.1 mAP (29.8 to 30.9) on the real test set, while the TS-versus-SS gap at 300 real images is +2.0 mAP (36.8 to 38.8) for YOLOv9. This does not rule out that most of the TS gain is volume-driven, so the abstract's claim that synthetic data 'can effectively compensate for limited labeled lecture slides' is not established by the present experiments. A matched-data control is required to support the causal claim.
  2. [§5.2, Table 6] The retrieval experiments compare SynRet (2,200 images) with RealSlide (300 images) and with LecSD-Train (31,475 images), but these conditions differ in both data source and data volume. The reported R@1 difference between SynRet (43) and RealSlide (300) (40) on the RealSlide test set is only 3 points, and no repeated-seed runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. Additionally, the test set contains 750 slides and the fine-tuning set 300, but the paper does not describe how the retrieval queries and captions for RealSlide were created or validated. The retrieval claim is therefore not yet supported at the required confidence level, and an equal-size in-domain control (e.g., RealSlide at 2,200 images, if available, or a subsampled equivalent) is needed.
  3. [§5.1 and §5.2 (overall experimental protocol)] All experiments appear to use a single train/validation split and a single run per configuration. No error bars, no multiple random seeds, and no statistical significance tests are reported. This is particularly concerning for the low-shot detection results: the RealSlide test set is only 750 images, and rare classes such as Natural Image (33 instances) and Table Caption (47 instances) have very few examples, so per-class mAP differences (e.g., Code +32.5 mAP at 50 real images) could be driven by a handful of instances. The central quantitative claims need repeated runs or bootstrap intervals to be credible.
  4. [§4.2 and §5.2] The RealSlide benchmark is described as manually annotated, but the paper provides no information on the annotation protocol: number of annotators, instructions, quality checks, or inter-annotator agreement. For the retrieval task, the mechanism used to create the query captions for the test set is not specified, and it is therefore unclear whether the evaluation measures retrieval of the intended visual content or is sensitive to the specific phrasing of the generated summaries. These details are necessary for the benchmark to be reusable and for the retrieval results to be interpreted.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and §5.1] The abstract states 'achieving a 9.7% mAP boost on YOLOv9' without specifying the IoU threshold; the main text should state that this is mAP@[0.5:0.95] to avoid ambiguity with the mAP@[0.5] values in Table 4.
  2. [§4.2 (Table 1)] Table 1 reports SynSlide as having 4,400 slides, but the text says SynDet contains 2,200 and SynRet contains 2,200; please clarify that the 4,400 is the union of the two subsets and explain how the detection and retrieval splits are aligned.
  3. [§1 and §3.1] The title and introduction use 'AI-Generated Lecture Slides', but the pipeline retrieves diagrams and images from the web in Phase I; this should be stated more precisely in the title or abstract (e.g., 'LLM-guided generation with web-sourced imagery') to avoid overstating the extent of AI generation.
  4. [§5.1 (Fig. 6)] The left panel of Fig. 6 is described as a confusion matrix for semantically similar classes, but the text does not specify for which model, which fine-tuning strategy, or which IoU threshold the confusion matrix is computed; please add a caption or text clarification.
  5. [§5.2] The sentence 'we also train the CLIP model using the same two-stage fine-tuning strategy defined in the Slide Element Detection task; however, minimal improvement is observed in the performance over SynRet alone' is vague; please report the actual R@1/R@10 numbers for the two-stage CLIP configuration or remove the claim.
  6. [Appendix C.4 (Table 2)] The 'Synthetic + Real' column should specify that 'Real' means 300 real images, and the table and text should clarify that the 2,200-image size was chosen after experimentation on the validation set, which creates a selection effect that should be acknowledged.
  7. [General] There are several minor grammatical and referencing issues, for example the phrase 'training with RealSlide and FitVid data respectively' in §5.1 does not match the content of Fig. 6, and the caption of Fig. 7 appears before the figure is referenced; these should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the evaluation is an empirical transfer-learning study whose inputs (synthetic slides, manual annotations) are not derived from the reported test outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that pre-training on synthetically generated lecture slides improves few-shot slide element detection and text-based retrieval on real slides. The derivation chain is fully empirical: SynLecSlideGen generates slides from textbook topics, LLM prompts, web-retrieved diagrams, and randomized layout/style templates (Sections 3), SynSlide is annotated automatically from the JSON used to render the slides, and RealSlide is annotated manually from real university lecture slides (Section 4.2). The reported gains (Tables 4 and 5, Fig. 5, Table 6) are measured on the held-out 750-image RealSlide set, and the synthetic data were not fitted to that test benchmark. No equation in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of the test data, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The comparison between single-stage real-only fine-tuning and two-stage synthetic-then-real fine-tuning is not volume-matched, so the abstract's causal wording ('synthetic data can effectively compensate for limited labeled lecture slides') is stronger than what the experiment isolates; however, that is an experimental confound and a correctness/validity risk, not definitional circularity. The paper itself acknowledges diminishing returns of synthetic scale in Appendix C.4, which further indicates the reported effect is an empirical observation rather than a construct. The only self-citations (LecSD/Jobin et al.) supply an external retrieval benchmark and a query-style baseline; the central transfer-learning result does not reduce to those citations, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from prior work by the same authors. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited by quoting an equation or a fitted-input/prediction equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new theoretical entities, forces, or latent variables are introduced; the contributions are datasets and a generation pipeline. The central claim depends on several pipeline design choices (free parameters) and on domain assumptions about LLM content quality, benchmark representativeness, metric validity, and annotation reliability.

free parameters (7)
  • SynSlide dataset size = 2,200 images per subset (SynDet and SynRet)
    Chosen via scaling experiments on the real validation set; larger sets give marginal gains, so 2,200 balances performance and training time (supplementary C.4).
  • Number of base layout templates = 18
    Hand-designed set of python-pptx layouts with at most 4 body elements; this constrains the diversity of synthetic slides (Section 3.2, Appendix B).
  • Target body elements per slide = exactly 2 in the prompt, up to 3 in main text
    The Instruction Generation prompt requires exactly two elements per slide, while Section 3.1 says up to three; this controls content density and is a pipeline choice.
  • Slides per presentation = 12 to 15
    The LLM is limited to at most 15 slide titles per presentation; the authors note real lectures have about three times more slides, limiting content depth (Appendix C.2).
  • Gaussian position perturbation sigma = title 0.5, body 1.0, footer 0.2
    Randomization parameters in Appendix B affect layout realism and are chosen by hand.
  • Scaling factor alpha lower bound tau = not specified
    Alpha is sampled uniformly from U(tau, 1), but tau is not reported, leaving the exact perturbation range under-specified.
  • LLM sampling parameters = temperature 0.5-0.7, top-p 0.8-0.95
    Author-selected hyperparameters for each generation stage (Appendix A.1) that affect content diversity and quality.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption LLMs' parametric knowledge of widely used STEM textbooks is sufficient to generate accurate and coherent lecture content.
    Section 3.1 relies on GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 knowledge of textbooks rather than retrieving actual textbook content.
  • domain assumption The 1,050 RealSlide slides, sampled from CC-licensed presentations in CS, Economics, Physics, and Mathematics, are representative of lecture slides in general.
    Section 4.2 uses RealSlide as the evaluation benchmark; if this sample is not representative, the reported transfer gains may not generalize.
  • domain assumption FID between synthetic and real slide distributions is a valid proxy for how useful synthetic slides are for downstream detection and retrieval.
    Table 3 uses FID to argue SynSlide is closer to RealSlide than DreamStruct, but FID is a pixel and feature distribution metric that may not track task-relevant layout similarity.
  • domain assumption Pre-trained document models (PubLayNet, DocLayNet, COCO) provide a useful starting point for lecture slide element detection.
    Section 5.1 initializes LayoutLMv3, YOLOv9, and DETR from these weights; the experiments assume this transfer is appropriate.
  • domain assumption Manual annotations of the 1,050 RealSlide slides are accurate and consistent.
    No inter-annotator agreement or annotation quality analysis is reported in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption Bing Search API results are suitable and permissible for inclusion in synthetic slides.
    Section 3.1 fetches diagrams from the web; licensing of retrieved images is not discussed, despite the paper emphasizing 'copyright-free' slides.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-Generated Lecture Slides for Improving Slide Element Detection and Retrieval." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5UCKPOQA

@misc{pith2026250623605,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-Generated Lecture Slides for Improving Slide Element Detection and Retrieval},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5UCKPOQA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23605}
}
read the original abstract

Lecture slide element detection and retrieval are key problems in slide understanding. Training effective models for these tasks often depends on extensive manual annotation. However, annotating large volumes of lecture slides for supervised training is labor intensive and requires domain expertise. To address this, we propose a large language model (LLM)-guided synthetic lecture slide generation pipeline, SynLecSlideGen, which produces high-quality, coherent and realistic slides. We also create an evaluation benchmark, namely RealSlide by manually annotating 1,050 real lecture slides. To assess the utility of our synthetic slides, we perform few-shot transfer learning on real data using models pre-trained on them. Experimental results show that few-shot transfer learning with pretraining on synthetic slides significantly improves performance compared to training only on real data. This demonstrates that synthetic data can effectively compensate for limited labeled lecture slides. The code and resources of our work are publicly available on our project website: https://synslidegen.github.io/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23605 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our Synthetic Lecture Slide Generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Displays sample slides from our generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of four consecutive slides from lecture slide datasets. The top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Occurrence of each element in the SynDet (Red) and RealSlide (Blue) datasets. SynDet contains twice as many elements for the five least frequent classes in RealSlide: URL, Figure Caption, Table, Table Caption, and Natural Image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of real slide images (RealSlide) on the performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Confusion Matrix for semantically similar classes. Right: Effect of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of a selection of visual results from YOLOv9 (Two-Stage), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual example of result from the CLIP model fine-tuned using SynRet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Phase 1 : Content Generation Phase 2 : Layout & Style Phase 3 : Rendering & Post Processing Topics Generation Example : Generate a presentation topic on each section of Structured Computer Architecture by Andrew S. Tanenbaum Example : Given the topic Instruction Set in…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of Layout and Style Discriminator module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Base Layouts used for SynSlide Generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Layout Heatmaps comparing randomized SynSlides (Left) with RealSlide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Layout Heatmaps comparing randomized SynSlides (Left) with RealSlide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SynDet Visual Examples (Semantically Non Coherent Slides but Visually closer to Real Slides) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SynRet Visual Examples (Coherent Slides) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ground truth annotations of sample SynDet slide images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustrate semantic summary and LecSD-style summary for two randomly selected sampled slides from our SynRet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of further selected visual results from YOLOv9 (Two-Stage), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Confusion Matrix for predictions of YOLOV9 Two stage finetuned model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visual Analysis of result of CLIP model finetuned using SynRet data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: ICCV

    Appalaraju, S., Jasani, B., Kota, B.U., Xie, Y., Manmatha, R.: Docformer: End- to-end transformer for document understanding. In: ICCV. pp. 993–1003 (2021) 16 Maniyar et al. 2

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Large-Scale Query-by-Image Video Retrieval Using Bloom Filters

    Araujo, A., Chaves, J., Lakshman, H., Angst, R., Girod, B.: Large-scale query-by- image video retrieval using bloom filters. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07939 (2016) 3

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Blanes, A.R.: Synthetic handwritten text generation. Univ. Autònoma de Barcelona (2018) 3

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    NeurIPS 33, 1877–1901 (2020) 5

    Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J.D., Dhariwal, P., Nee- lakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al.: Language models are few-shot learners. NeurIPS 33, 1877–1901 (2020) 5

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    In: ECCV

    Carion, N., Massa, F., Synnaeve, G., Usunier, N., Kirillov, A., Zagoruyko, S.: End- to-end object detection with transformers. In: ECCV. p. 213–229 (2020) 11

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    In: ICCV

    Da, C., Luo, C., Zheng, Q., Yao, C.: Vision grid transformer for document layout analysis. In: ICCV. pp. 19462–19472 (2023) 2

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    In: WACV

    Haurilet, M., Al-Halah, Z., Stiefelhagen, R.: Spase-multi-label page segmentation for presentation slides. In: WACV. pp. 726–734 (2019) 2, 3, 8, 10

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    In: ICDAR

    Haurilet, M., Roitberg, A., Martinez, M., Stiefelhagen, R.: Wise—slide segmenta- tion in the wild. In: ICDAR. pp. 343–348 (2019) 2, 3, 8, 10

    work page 2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    In: ICDAR

    He, L., Lu, Y., Corring, J., Florencio, D., Zhang, C.: Diffusion-based document layout generation. In: ICDAR. pp. 361–378 (2023) 3

    2023

  2. [10]

    In: NeurIPS

    Heusel,M.,Ramsauer,H.,Unterthiner,T.,Nessler,B.,Hochreiter,S.:Ganstrained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. In: NeurIPS. p. 6629–6640 (2017) 10

    2017

  3. [11]

    In: ACM MM (2022) 2, 11

    Huang, Y., Lv, T., Cui, L., Lu, Y., Wei, F.: LayoutLMV3: Pre-training for docu- ment ai with unified text and image masking. In: ACM MM (2022) 2, 11

    2022

  4. [12]

    In: WACV (2024) 2, 3, 8, 10

    Jobin, K., Mishra, A., Jawahar, C.: Semantic labels-aware transformer model for searching over a large collection of lecture-slides. In: WACV (2024) 2, 3, 8, 10

    2024

  5. [13]

    In: CVIP

    Jobin, K., Mondal, A., Jawahar, C.: Classroom slide narration system. In: CVIP. pp. 135–146 (2021) 3

    2021

  6. [14]

    In: ACM CHI

    Kim,J.,Choi,Y.,Kahng,M.,Kim,J.:Fitvid:Responsiveandflexiblevideocontent adaptation. In: ACM CHI. pp. 1–16 (2022) 3, 8, 9, 10

    2022

  7. [15]

    arXiv (2022) 2, 3, 10

    Lee, D.W., Ahuja, C., Liang, P.P., Natu, S., Morency, L.P.: Multimodal lecture presentations dataset: Understanding multimodality in educational slides. arXiv (2022) 2, 3, 10

    2022

  8. [16]

    In: AAAI

    Li, I., Fabbri, A.R., Tung, R.R., Radev, D.R.: What should i learn first: Introducing lecturebank for nlp education and prerequisite chain learning. In: AAAI. vol. 33, pp. 6674–6681 (2019) 5

    2019

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.01038 (2020) 2

    Li,M.,Xu,Y.,Cui,L.,Huang,S.,Wei,F.,Li,Z.,Zhou,M.:Docbank:Abenchmark dataset for document layout analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.01038 (2020) 2

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    In: ECCV

    Lin, T.Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Dollár, P., Zitnick, C.L.: Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In: ECCV. pp. 740–755 (2014) 7

    2014

  11. [19]

    In: MICCAI Workshop

    Osuala, R.: Enhancing the utility of privacy-preserving cancer classification using synthetic data. In: MICCAI Workshop. p. 54 (2024) 3

    2024

  12. [20]

    In: ECCV

    Peng, Y.H., Huq, F., Jiang, Y., Wu, J., Li, X.Y., Bigham, J.P., Pavel, A.: Dream- struct: Understanding slides and user interfaces via synthetic data generation. In: ECCV. pp. 466–485 (2024) 3, 8, 10, 14

    2024

  13. [21]

    In: ACM SIGKDD (2022) 11 SynLecSlideGen 17

    Pfitzmann, B., Auer, C., Dolfi, M., Nassar, A.S., Staar, P.: DocLayNet: A large human-annotated dataset for document-layout segmentation. In: ACM SIGKDD (2022) 11 SynLecSlideGen 17

    2022

  14. [22]

    Pattern Recognition Letters 167, 38–44 (2023) 3

    Pisaneschi, L., Gemelli, A., Marinai, S.: Automatic generation of scientific papers for data augmentation in document layout analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters 167, 38–44 (2023) 3

    2023

  15. [23]

    In: ICML (2021) 3, 14

    Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: ICML (2021) 3, 14

    2021

  16. [24]

    In: ICDAR

    Seng, T., Carlier, A., Forgione, T., Charvillat, V., Ooi, W.T.: Slidecraft: Synthetic slides generation for robust slide analysis. In: ICDAR. pp. 79–96 (2024) 3, 10

    2024

  17. [25]

    arXiv (2020) 3

    Shakeri, S., Santos, C.N.d., Zhu, H., Ng, P., Nan, F., Wang, Z., Nallapati, R., Xiang, B.: End-to-end synthetic data generation for domain adaptation of question answering systems. arXiv (2020) 3

    2020

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14207 (2024) 3

    Shao,Y.,Jiang,Y.,Kanell,T.A.,Xu,P.,Khattab,O.,Lam,M.S.:Assistinginwrit- ing wikipedia-like articles from scratch with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14207 (2024) 3

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    In: AAAI

    Shu, K., Li, Y., Ding, K., Liu, H.: Fact-enhanced synthetic news generation. In: AAAI. vol. 35, pp. 13825–13833 (2021) 3

    2021

  20. [28]

    In: CVPR

    Singh, K., Navaratnam, T., Holmer, J., Schaub-Meyer, S., Roth, S.: Is synthetic data all we need? benchmarking the robustness of models trained with synthetic images. In: CVPR. pp. 2505–2515 (2024) 3

    2024

  21. [29]

    In: CVPR

    Song, Y., Soleymani, M.: Polysemous visual-semantic embedding for cross-modal retrieval. In: CVPR. pp. 1979–1988 (2019) 3

    2019

  22. [30]

    Information15(5), 264 (2024) 3

    Sufi, F.: Addressing data scarcity in the medical domain: A gpt-based approach for synthetic data generation and feature extraction. Information15(5), 264 (2024) 3

    2024

  23. [31]

    In: AAAI

    Tanaka, R., Nishida, K., Nishida, K., Hasegawa, T., Saito, I., Saito, K.: Slidevqa: A dataset for document visual question answering on multiple images. In: AAAI. pp. 13636–13645 (2023) 2, 3, 8

    2023

  24. [32]

    In: CVPR

    Tang, Z., Yang, Z., Wang, G., Fang, Y., Liu, Y., Zhu, C., Zeng, M., Zhang, C., Bansal, M.: Unifying vision, text, and layout for universal document processing. In: CVPR. pp. 19254–19264 (2023) 2

    2023

  25. [33]

    In: ECCV (2024) 11

    Wang, C.Y., Yeh, I.H., Mark Liao, H.Y.: YOLOV9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information. In: ECCV (2024) 11

    2024

  26. [34]

    NeurIPS 35, 24824–24837 (2022) 5

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q.V., Zhou, D., et al.: Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. NeurIPS 35, 24824–24837 (2022) 5

    2022

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02253 (2023) 3

    Yu, Z., Zhu, C., Culatana, S., Krishnamoorthi, R., Xiao, F., Lee, Y.J.: Diversify, don’t fine-tune: Scaling up visual recognition training with synthetic images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02253 (2023) 3

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    CS": [ "Math for Deep Learning Basics

    Zhong, X., Tang, J., Yepes, A.J.: PubLayNet: largest dataset ever for document layout analysis. In: ICDAR (2019) 2, 11 Supplementary Material: AI-Generated Lecture Slides for Improving Slide Element Detection and Retrieval Suyash Maniyar⋆1[0009−0000−5882−4377], Vishvesh Trived...

    2019

  29. [37]

    b) Structural prompt for LaTeX-rendered elements

    Initialize three prompts: a) Text prompt for textual elements. b) Structural prompt for LaTeX-rendered elements. c) Code prompt for plots and diagrams

  30. [38]

    description

    For each slide: a) Iterate through all elements in the slide. b) Identify the element type (e.g., "description", "equation", "plot"). c) Generate type-specific instructions: i. For "textual" types: Append context and instructions for generating simple text. ii. For "LaTeX-rend...

  31. [39]

    Overview of Machine Learning

    Add post-generation checks to each prompt: a) Ensure syntax correctness. b) Verify that the number of generated snippets matches the requests. Example Prompts Prompt for a Textual Element (Description)This prompt instructs the model to generate descriptive text based on the pr...

  32. [40]

    Assignment of Layout & Style

  33. [41]

    Randomization of Layout and Style2. Adding Meta Elements (like Slide Number, Footer, Logo) Final Output n = 3 title description diagram n = 4 Title : Critical Section Problem Description : The critical section problem addresses managing process access to shared resources to pr...

  34. [42]

    b) Footer: Three equally spaced text areas at the bottom of the slide

    Initialize a dictionary ‘dimensions‘ that stores layouts for: a) Title: Single large text area at the top of the slide. b) Footer: Three equally spaced text areas at the bottom of the slide. c) Body: Configurations for 1 to 3 elements arranged in: i. Single column. ii. Two-col...

  35. [43]

    b) Update the ‘dimensions‘ dictionary with corresponding element positions

    Define a method ‘get_layout_dimensions(layout_id)‘: a) Match ‘layout_id‘ with predefined layouts. b) Update the ‘dimensions‘ dictionary with corresponding element positions. c) Return updated dimensions for rendering. Random Layout Selection Layouts are assigned based on the n...

  36. [44]

    b) Values: List of permissible layout IDs

    Create a mapping ‘layout_mapping‘: a) Keys: Number of elements on the slide. b) Values: List of permissible layout IDs

  37. [45]

    b) Output: Randomly choose a layout ID from ‘layout_mapping‘

    Function ‘generate_random_layout(total_body_elements)‘: a) Input: Total number of elements. b) Output: Randomly choose a layout ID from ‘layout_mapping‘. Position Perturbation for RandomnessGiven a slide element with dimen- sions: – dleft: Left coordinate. – dtop: Top coordina...

  38. [46]

    ‘dims‘: Dictionary with position and size (top, left, height, width)

    Function ‘randomize_location(dims, element)‘: a) Inputs: i. ‘dims‘: Dictionary with position and size (top, left, height, width). ii. ‘element‘: Type of slide element (title, body, footer). b) Process: i. Adjust dimensions using scaling factors for height and width. ii. Pertur...

  39. [47]

    – Body text: Font type, spacing, indentation

    Define a pool of permissible styles for: – Titles: Font size, color, alignment. – Body text: Font type, spacing, indentation. – Background: Solid colors, gradients, or images

  40. [48]

    Randomly select styles for each slide element

  41. [49]

    B.3 Example Workflow Consider a slide with two body elements

    Apply styles consistently across all elements of the same type within a slide. B.3 Example Workflow Consider a slide with two body elements. The workflow is as follows:

  42. [50]

    Content Analysis:Count the number of elements (n = 2)

  43. [51]

    Random Layout Selection:Choose a layout ID (e.g., ID=2) from per- missible layouts forn = 2

  44. [52]

    Randomization: Apply position perturbations to layout elements

  45. [53]

    Style Assignment: Randomly assign styles to the title, body, and back- ground. B.4 Type of Layouts and Design Templates To sum up, the Layout and Style discriminator module achieves the following: – Provides flexibility in slide design by using randomized layouts and styles. –...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.