Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Boosting Text-To-Image Generation via Multilingual Prompting in Large Multimodal Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding machine translations to image prompts improves text-to-image generation.

desk verdict A clean, small-gain empirical paper—multilingual prompt enrichment works for T2I, but the reranking bonus is confounded with prompt diversity. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07086 v1 pith:OUPCNGYQ submitted 2025-01-13 cs.CL

Yongyu Mu , Hengyu Li , Junxin Wang , Xiaoxuan Zhou , Chenglong Wang , Yingfeng Luo , Qiaozhi He , Tong Xiao
show 2 more authors
Guocheng Chen Jingbo Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords text-to-imagegenerationmultilingualpromptinglargemultimodalmodelsin-contextlearningpromptengineeringmachinetranslationimagediversityreranking
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

This paper claims that a text-to-image model understands an English description better when it is also shown faithful translations of that description in several other languages. The proposed method, PMT2I, builds parallel multilingual prompts by machine-translating the input text and feeding the original alongside the translations to large multimodal models (LMMs). Across three benchmarks and two LMMs, the authors report that PMT2I improves text-image alignment, compositional accuracy, fine-grained attribute binding, and human preference scores, and that the effect is not due simply to repetition or paraphrasing. A sympathetic reader would care because the method is training-free, requires no parameter updates, and exploits capabilities the models already possess, suggesting a cheap and scalable way to improve image generation from complex prompts.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parallel multilingual prompt: a template that packs the original description together with n machine-translated equivalents as '[language]: [text in that language]' entries, with English placed first. The authors model the LMM as a conditional encoder C = Encode(f(S_n, T)) and argue that the multilingual input enriches the in-context learning input space, triggering latent multilingual capabilities of the model. The second mechanism is the combinatorial scaling of prompts by permuting translation subsets, generating thousands of candidate prompts whose images are then scored and reranked by CLIP-T similarity.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison where the six translations are replaced by six paraphrases in the same six languages, with the template unchanged, would isolate whether the gain comes from multilingualism rather than from input repetition or length; if paraphrases match PMT2I, the multilingual trigger is not needed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PMT2I establishes that presenting an LMM with a set of semantic-parallel translations of the input text, alongside the original, yields better text-to-image generation than the original text alone, even though no single non-English translation does as well as English. The paper reports consistent gains on Emu2-Gen and Lumina-Next for general T2I synthesis (e.g., CLIP-T +0.6 and CLIP-I +0.9 for Emu2-Gen on MS-COCO 30K), on compositional DrawBench prompts, and on color, shape, and texture subsets of T2I-CompBench (averaging 4.96 points improvement on B-VQA across the two models), with ImageReward jumping from -0.205 to 0.075 for Emu2-Gen. Because the translations are drawn from rich-resource languages and placed after the English text, the authors claim a weak-to-strong pattern in which weaker-language inputs boost the strongest-language performance. The method scales to 1956 distinct prompts from six languages, and when combined with CLIP-T reranking over these diverse candidates it outperforms reranking over monolingual candidates, with the diversity of generated images visible in higher reward at comparable L1 distance.

Load-bearing premise

The method works only if the non-English translations are faithful and the model genuinely integrates them rather than ignoring them or being disrupted by them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If PMT2I's gain is real, any LMM that was trained on a mix of languages can be improved for T2I purposes merely by adding machine translations, without retraining or prompt optimizers.
  • The weak-to-strong pattern suggests that non-English inputs can serve as a form of supervision or auxiliary signal for English-dominant LMMs, opening the door to similar multilingual prompting in other multimodal tasks such as image editing or video generation.
  • PMT2I's scalability to hundreds of distinct prompts makes it a practical diversity engine for reranking pipelines, where candidate diversity is the bottleneck; the paper's ablation shows gains grow as the number of candidates increases.
  • The technique transfers across model families (Emu2-Gen's end-to-end multimodal design and Lumina-Next's diffusion-transformer with a separate text encoder), indicating generality beyond a single architecture.
  • The paper's multilingual ablations (English-only prompts outperform any single translation, while combinations beat English) imply that the benefit arises from cross-language interaction, not from any particular translation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper implies that any LMM with latent multilingual abilities, even those not explicitly trained for multilingual performance, can be boosted by this technique, which could extend to other multimodal tasks like image editing and video generation.
  • Because the method is training-free and uses only off-the-shelf machine translators, it could be combined with existing prompt optimizers to compound gains, though the paper does not test this interaction.
  • The reported diversity gains suggest that multilingual prompting could serve as a controllable source of stochasticity for sampling-based generation, potentially improving coverage of the prompt's semantic space.
  • If the weak-to-strong pattern generalizes, then for users whose native language is not English, providing translations of their own prompts might yield better images than the original prompt alone, a testable extension the paper does not run.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PMT2I, a training-free prompting method for text-to-image generation with large multimodal models (LMMs). Given an English image description, PMT2I translates it into several high-resource languages, keeps the original English text first, and packs the original plus translations into a '[language]: [text]' template. The authors evaluate PMT2I with Emu2-Gen and Lumina-NEXT on MS-COCO 30K, DrawBench, and three subsets of T2I-CompBench, reporting improvements in CLIP-T, CLIP-I, DINO, B-VQA, GPT-4o judgment accuracy, and ImageReward over an English-only baseline. They further report additional gains when multiple PMT2I prompts are used with a CLIP-T reranking step, attributing the gain to the diversity of multilingual prompts. Ablations show that performance improves with more languages, that no single language is responsible, and that reduplication or paraphrasing in the single-prompt setting does not match PMT2I. Code and parallel multilingual data are released.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, PMT2I is a simple, scalable, and training-free way to improve text-image alignment and output diversity for LMM-based T2I systems, and it extends the 'parallel multilingual learners' phenomenon from LLMs to LMMs. The paper has two notable strengths: the paraphrasing and reduplication ablation in Fig. 3(d) is a good control for the trivial confound that PMT2I merely lengthens the prompt, and the release of code and data supports reproducibility. However, the current evidence is not yet strong enough for the paper's strongest claims. The headline numerical differences are small and no variance or significance information is reported, the reranking advantage lacks a paraphrased-prompt reranking control, and the human-preference claim rests entirely on a learned reward model. These gaps are fixable and do not invalidate the core idea, but they currently limit the force of the contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Table I, Fig. 3(b)] The reranking comparison is confounded with prompt diversity. EN Prompt+rerank samples k image candidates from a single English prompt using different random seeds, whereas PMT2I+rerank samples one candidate from each of k distinct multilingual prompt variants (PMT2I-1 through PMT2I-6 in the Table I footnote). The only control for prompt diversity, the paraphrasing ablation in Fig. 3(d), is evaluated on single prompts (Q3, Section III-D) and does not include the reranking step. It is therefore unknown whether the reranking gain is specific to multilingual prompts or would also be obtained by reranking over k paraphrased English prompts of comparable diversity. Since the abstract and Section IV explicitly claim that PMT2I's multilingual diversity is what makes reranking superior, this missing control is load-bearing; please add a reranking experiment over paraphrased, and ideally also reduplicated, English prompts.
  2. [Table I and Section III-B] No variance or significance information is reported for any of the headline numbers. For example, the claimed MS-COCO improvement for Emu2-Gen is CLIP-T 29.8 to 30.4 and CLIP-I 68.8 to 69.7, while for Lumina-NEXT the CLIP-T gain is 30.8 to 31.0. Without multiple seeds, error bars, or significance tests, these small differences are indistinguishable from sampling noise. The phrase 'significantly outperforms' in the abstract is therefore not supported by statistical evidence. Please report the mean and standard deviation over at least several seeds and include a paired significance test for the main comparisons.
  3. [Section II-A and Section III-A] The mechanism claim that PMT2I 'triggers multilingual capabilities' rests on the assumptions that the machine translations are faithful and that the LMM genuinely integrates the non-English text rather than ignoring or being disrupted by it. The paper selects rich-resource languages and commercial translators but reports no translation-quality check, no human rating of translation adequacy, and no analysis of how the model weights each language. The ablation in Fig. 3(c) compares whole prompts, not whether the model actually uses the translations. A concrete minimum test would be to include a control with corrupted or shuffled translations in the same languages; if performance degrades, the multilingual content is indeed load-bearing. Without such a control, the weak-to-strong interpretation in Section III-D remains one of several possible explanations rather than an established mechanism.
  4. [Section III-A (Metrics) and Table I] The human-preference claim is based exclusively on ImageReward, a learned reward model, and the DrawBench evaluation is judged by GPT-4o. Both are LLM-based evaluation signals with known biases, and the paper reports no human evaluation at all. Given the abstract's emphasis on 'human preference alignment,' at least a small human study on a subset of prompts, or a comparison with an established human-aligned evaluation protocol, is needed before the preference-alignment claim can be accepted at face value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-A, Eq. (1)] The DDPM factorization 'P (xI ) QI i=1 P (xI−i|xI−i+1, C)' appears to be missing the product symbol and has confusing index notation; please rewrite it with an explicit product and define the indices clearly.
  2. [Section II-B] The sentence 'we have n distinct sets, denoted as {S1, . . . , Sn}, with each set Si containing i translations' is confusing, because the count sum_i A_i^n actually enumerates ordered sequences of translations, not sets. Please clarify the derivation of the 1956 bound.
  3. [Fig. 3(a)] The axes of the L1-distance/reward scatter plot are not labeled, and the values '0.1302' and '0.1407' mentioned in the caption are unexplained. Please add axis labels, a legend, and a description of the reported values.
  4. [Section III-C and Fig. 2] The qualitative discussion is useful, but the sample captions in Fig. 2 are fragmented. Please provide complete sentences and indicate which model generated each panel.
  5. [Abstract and Section III-B] The word 'significant' is used repeatedly for numerical differences without statistical testing. Please reserve this term for tested differences or qualify it as 'numerically larger' until significance analysis is added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PMT2I is an empirical prompting method evaluated on independent metrics; the only self-citation is motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

PMT2I is a training-free prompting method with no fitted parameters and no prediction derived from its own construction. The central comparisons (PMT2I vs EN Prompt vs Auto-opt) are empirical measurements on MS-COCO, DrawBench, and T2I-CompBench, with metrics including CLIP-T, CLIP-I, DINO, ImageReward, GPT-4o judgment, and BLIP-VQA; none of these are defined in terms of the PMT2I prompt template. The reranking step (Eq. 3) does select candidates by CLIP-T and then Table I also reports CLIP-T, which is a selection-on-metric caveat, but the claimed advantage of PMT2I+rerank over EN+rerank compares equal-size candidate sets and is not forced by construction; moreover, PMT2I's non-reranked gains and ImageReward/B-VQA improvements are independent of this selection. The citation [11] to the authors' earlier LLM multilingual-prompting work is used as motivation, not as a load-bearing proof; the T2I experiments stand on their own. The paraphrasing ablation in Fig. 3(d) directly tests whether multilingualism rather than mere text diversity drives the effect. The paper candidly notes duplication errors in Section III-C, which is a limitation but not circularity. Consequently, no circular step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the method is a prompt transformation. The assumptions are domain-level and the templates are ad hoc design choices.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Machine translations of prompts are faithful to the original English semantics.
    Section II-A states 'the better the translations, the better the images generated' and relies on GPT-4o, DeepL, and NiuTrans without quality checks.
  • domain assumption The tested LMMs have triggerable multilingual capabilities even when English is dominant.
    Section II-A criteria and Section III results depend on the models integrating non-English text; the authors cite LAION mixture as evidence.
  • ad hoc to paper The template '[language]: [text]' with English first is an effective prompt format.
    Section II-A defines the template f(S_n, T) as a design choice; no ablation over template order is shown except the fixed English-first rule.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boosting Text-To-Image Generation via Multilingual Prompting in Large Multimodal Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUPCNGYQ

@misc{pith2026250107086,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boosting Text-To-Image Generation via Multilingual Prompting in Large Multimodal Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUPCNGYQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07086}
}
read the original abstract

Previous work on augmenting large multimodal models (LMMs) for text-to-image (T2I) generation has focused on enriching the input space of in-context learning (ICL). This includes providing a few demonstrations and optimizing image descriptions to be more detailed and logical. However, as demand for more complex and flexible image descriptions grows, enhancing comprehension of input text within the ICL paradigm remains a critical yet underexplored area. In this work, we extend this line of research by constructing parallel multilingual prompts aimed at harnessing the multilingual capabilities of LMMs. More specifically, we translate the input text into several languages and provide the models with both the original text and the translations. Experiments on two LMMs across 3 benchmarks show that our method, PMT2I, achieves superior performance in general, compositional, and fine-grained assessments, especially in human preference alignment. Additionally, with its advantage of generating more diverse images, PMT2I significantly outperforms baseline prompts when incorporated with reranking methods. Our code and parallel multilingual data can be found at https://github.com/takagi97/PMT2I.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07086 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the two phases of PMT2I. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results of EN Prompt and PMT2I by Lumina-Next. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fig. (a) displays the L1 distances and the reward scores of 2000 randomly selected samples, where the top-right samples exhibit both high quality and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    GLIDE: towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models,

    A. Q. Nichol, P. Dhariwal, A. Ramesh, P. Shyam, P. Mishkin, B. Mc- Grew, I. Sutskever, and M. Chen, “GLIDE: towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 162. P...

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Zero-shot text-to-image generation,

    A. Ramesh, M. Pavlov, G. Goh, S. Gray, C. V oss, A. Radford, M. Chen, and I. Sutskever, “Zero-shot text-to-image generation,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 139. PMLR, 2021, pp. 8821–8831

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding,

    C. Saharia, W. Chan, S. Saxena, L. Li, J. Whang, E. L. Denton, S. K. S. Ghasemipour, R. G. Lopes, B. K. Ayan, T. Salimans, J. Ho, D. J. Fleet, and M. Norouzi, “Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing System...

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    The revolution of multimodal large language models: A survey,

    D. Caffagni, F. Cocchi, L. Barsellotti, N. Moratelli, S. Sarto, L. Baraldi, M. Cornia, and R. Cucchiara, “The revolution of multimodal large language models: A survey,” in Findings of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand and virtual meeting, August 11-16, 2024 . Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024, pp. 1...

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Design guidelines for prompt engineering text- to-image generative models,

    V . Liu and L. B. Chilton, “Design guidelines for prompt engineering text- to-image generative models,” in CHI ’22: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 29 April 2022 - 5 May 2022 . ACM, 2022, pp. 384:1–384:23

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Generative multimodal models are in-context learners,

    Q. Sun, Y . Cui, X. Zhang, F. Zhang, Q. Yu, Z. Luo, Y . Wang, Y . Rao, J. Liu, T. Huang, and X. Wang, “Generative multimodal models are in-context learners,” CoRR, vol. abs/2312.13286, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Promptcot: Align prompt distribution via adapted chain- of-thought,

    J. Yao, Y . Liu, Z. Dong, M. Guo, H. Hu, K. Keutzer, L. Du, D. Zhou, and S. Zhang, “Promptcot: Align prompt distribution via adapted chain- of-thought,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 7027–7037

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Not all languages are created equal in llms: Improving multilingual capability by cross-lingual-thought prompting,

    H. Huang, T. Tang, D. Zhang, X. Zhao, T. Song, Y . Xia, and F. Wei, “Not all languages are created equal in llms: Improving multilingual capability by cross-lingual-thought prompting,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10,

    work page 2023

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Cross-lingual prompt- ing: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning across languages,

    L. Qin, Q. Chen, F. Wei, S. Huang, and W. Che, “Cross-lingual prompt- ing: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning across languages,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023 . ...

    2023

  2. [10]

    PLUG: leveraging pivot language in cross-lingual instruction tuning,

    Z. Zhang, D. Lee, Y . Fang, W. Yu, M. Jia, M. Jiang, and F. Bar- bieri, “PLUG: leveraging pivot language in cross-lingual instruction tuning,” in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2024, Bangkok,...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Large language models are parallel multilingual learners,

    Y . Mu, P. Feng, Z. Cao, Y . Wu, B. Li, C. Wang, T. Xiao, K. Song, T. Liu, C. Zhang, and J. Zhu, “Large language models are parallel multilingual learners,” CoRR, vol. abs/2403.09073, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    LAION-5B: an open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models,

    C. Schuhmann, R. Beaumont, R. Vencu, C. Gordon, R. Wight- man, M. Cherti, T. Coombes, A. Katta, C. Mullis, M. Wortsman, P. Schramowski, S. Kundurthy, K. Crowson, L. Schmidt, R. Kacz- marczyk, and J. Jitsev, “LAION-5B: an open large-scale dataset for training next generation im...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual , 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Taming transformers for high- resolution image synthesis,

    P. Esser, R. Rombach, and B. Ommer, “Taming transformers for high- resolution image synthesis,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021 . Com- puter Vision Foundation / IEEE, 2021, pp. 12 873–12 883

    2021

  7. [15]

    Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning,

    J. Hessel, A. Holtzman, M. Forbes, R. L. Bras, and Y . Choi, “Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning,” in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Rep...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Microsoft COCO: common objects in context,

    T. Lin, M. Maire, S. J. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll ´ar, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft COCO: common objects in context,” in Computer Vision - ECCV 2014 - 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V , ser. Lectu...

    2014

  9. [17]

    Improving image generation with better captions,

    J. Betker, G. Goh, L. Jing, T. Brooks, J. Wang, L. Li, L. Ouyang, J. Zhuang, J. Lee, Y . Guoet al., “Improving image generation with better captions,” Computer Science. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 8, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    T2i-compbench: A comprehensive benchmark for open-world compositional text-to-image generation,

    K. Huang, K. Sun, E. Xie, Z. Li, and X. Liu, “T2i-compbench: A comprehensive benchmark for open-world compositional text-to-image generation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction-guided image editing,

    K. Zhang, L. Mo, W. Chen, H. Sun, and Y . Su, “Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction-guided image editing,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, L...

    2023

  12. [20]

    BLIP: bootstrapping language- image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and genera- tion,

    J. Li, D. Li, C. Xiong, and S. C. H. Hoi, “BLIP: bootstrapping language- image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and genera- tion,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17- 23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA , ser. Proceedings of...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Imagereward: Learning and evaluating human preferences for text- to-image generation,

    J. Xu, X. Liu, Y . Wu, Y . Tong, Q. Li, M. Ding, J. Tang, and Y . Dong, “Imagereward: Learning and evaluating human preferences for text- to-image generation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Lumina- next: Making lumina-t2x stronger and faster with next-dit,

    L. Zhuo, R. Du, H. Xiao, Y . Li, D. Liu, R. Huang, W. Liu, L. Zhao, F. Wang, Z. Ma, X. Luo, Z. Wang, K. Zhang, X. Zhu, S. Liu, X. Yue, D. Liu, W. Ouyang, Z. Liu, Y . Qiao, H. Li, and P. Gao, “Lumina- next: Making lumina-t2x stronger and faster with next-dit,” CoRR, vol. abs/24...

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology,

    T. Mesnard, C. Hardin, R. Dadashi, S. Bhupatiraju, S. Pathak, L. Sifre, M. Rivi `ere, M. S. Kale, J. Love, P. Tafti, L. Hussenot, A. Chowdhery, A. Roberts, A. Barua, A. Botev, A. Castro-Ros, A. Slone, A. H ´eliou, A. Tacchetti, A. Bulanova, A. Paterson, B. Tsai, B. Shahriari, ...

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Optimizing prompts for text- to-image generation,

    Y . Hao, Z. Chi, L. Dong, and F. Wei, “Optimizing prompts for text- to-image generation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023 , 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Aligner: Achieving efficient alignment through weak-to-strong correction,

    J. Ji, B. Chen, H. Lou, D. Hong, B. Zhang, X. Pan, J. Dai, and Y . Yang, “Aligner: Achieving efficient alignment through weak-to-strong correction,” CoRR, vol. abs/2402.02416, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Weak-to-strong generalization: Eliciting strong capabilities with weak supervision,

    C. Burns, P. Izmailov, J. H. Kirchner, B. Baker, L. Gao, L. Aschenbren- ner, Y . Chen, A. Ecoffet, M. Joglekar, J. Leike, I. Sutskever, and J. Wu, “Weak-to-strong generalization: Eliciting strong capabilities with weak supervision,” in Forty-first International Conference on M...

    2024

  19. [2023]

    12 365– 12 394

    Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023, pp. 12 365– 12 394

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.