NTH

Where, What, Why, and Importance: Structured Defect Grounding for Text-to-Image Feedback

AuthorsHuaisong Zhang, Hao Yu, Yuxuan Zhang, Jiahe Wang, Xinrui Chen, Haoxiang Cao, Feng Lu, Wendong Zhang, Changqian Yu, Chun Yuan

June 12, 2026 2 min read
Watch on YouTube
The one-line take

This paper turns image-quality debugging for text-to-image models into a structured task that pinpoints what is wrong, where it is wrong, why, and how important it is, then uses those defects to improve the generator.

Key results

30096
SDG-30K size

Box-grounded dataset size across four T2I generators

4
Generators

FLUX.2-dev, Z-Image-Turbo, LongCat-Image, and SANA-1.5-1.6B

0.263
Artifact BoxF1@0.5

Best SDG detector result for artifact localization

0.387
Misalignment BoxF1@0.5

Best SDG detector result for prompt-conditioned misalignment localization

2.4%
BoxFlow-GRPO Avg

Average relative downstream improvement over the base model

0.228
P(real)

Real-image probability achieved by BoxFlow-GRPO

What the paper found

This paper from Tsinghua University and Kuaishou’s Kolors Team introduces Structured Defect Grounding, or SDG, a shift from heatmap regression to instance-level defect prediction for text-to-image feedback. Instead of collapsing failures into a single score or pixel field, SDG represents each defect as a location-type-reason-importance tuple, covering both artifacts and prompt-conditioned misalignments. To train and evaluate this formulation, the authors build SDG-30K, a 30,096-image dataset annotated across four generators—FLUX.2-dev, Z-Image-Turbo, LongCat-Image, and SANA-1.5-1.6B—and augment the labels with Gemini 3 Pro for reasoning traces, description expansion, and importance scoring. A Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct detector trained with supervised fine-tuning and GRPO reaches 0.263 BoxF1@0.5 for artifacts and 0.387 for misalignments, close to the human upper bound of 0.278 and 0.409, while zero-shot GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3 Pro lag far behind on precise localization. The structured outputs also drive BoxFlow-GRPO, which turns defect boxes into importance-weighted spatial rewards for FLUX.1-dev and improves average downstream reward by 2.4%, with P(real) rising to 0.228. The same feedback enables GPT-Image-1.5 refinement, where SDG beats ImageDoctor and a fixed caption-only baseline on paired comparisons, showing that localized, semantically explicit defect grounding can diagnose, align, and correct modern generative models in one framework.

Original abstract

Despite generating increasingly photorealistic images, text-to-image (T2I) models still exhibit localized, subtle, and structurally complex failures. Diagnosing these failures requires instance-level feedback that answers where a defect occurs, what type it is, why it is defective, and its importance to overall image quality. While recent dense-feedback methods move beyond scalar supervision, their heatmap-centric representations still formulate diagnosis as pixel-field regression, making it difficult to localize variable-cardinality defects and bind semantic reasons to individual failures. To address this representation bottleneck, we propose Structured Defect Grounding (SDG), which casts T2I diagnosis as structured set prediction by modeling each defect as a (location, type, reason, importance) tuple. To make this formulation trainable and measurable, we introduce SDG-30K, a 30K-image dataset with box-grounded annotations across four modern T2I generators, together with a dedicated evaluation protocol, SDG-Eval. Building on this structured representation, we further present a diagnosis-to-alignment framework in which a Vision-Language Model (VLM) serves as the SDG detector, and BoxFlow-GRPO converts predicted defect sets into box-derived, importance-weighted spatial rewards for diffusion model alignment. Extensive experiments show that our SDG detector outperforms leading proprietary VLMs on structured defect grounding, while SDG-guided rewards consistently improve T2I alignment and support localized image refinement. These results establish SDG as a unified, instance-level interface for diagnosing, evaluating, and enhancing modern generative models.

Read the original paper

More in Generative Models

Browse all 63 papers →
01Generative Model

RULER: Instance-aware Rubric Rewards for SVG Generation

Hangyu Ran, Yuhao Zheng, Yingying Zhang, Kevin Qinghong Lin, Han Peng

RULER uses instruction-specific visual rubrics as reinforcement-learning rewards to make SVG generation more faithful, stylish, and resistant to reward hacking.

Read analysis
02Generative Model

Think Before You Score: Thinking Reward Model for Visual Generation

Xuehai Bai, Zhenchen Tang, Yang Shi, Dianyi Wang, Tengfei Liu, Wanshun Su, Xuanyu Zhu, Ruohui Wang, Haiwen Diao, Haotian Wang, Xiaoling Gu, Yuanxing Zhang

A visual reward model that first decides what matters in each image-generation case, then scores outputs with detailed rubrics to provide better training signals.

Read analysis
03Generative Model

WanPE: Towards Cinematic Prompt Enhancement for Modern Text-to-Video Generation

Yubo Zhu, Yawen Shao, Ziyun Dai, Zixun Fang, Kai Zhu, Siyang Sun, Haolan Xue, Chuxin Wang, Tingyu Weng, Jingming Luo, Chen Shi, Lianghua Huang, Yufeng Ai, Yuzheng Wang, Wenyuan Zhang, Yu Shang, Yuxiang Bao, Zoubin Bi, Jie Xiao, Jinbo Xing, Jiaxing Zhao, Chongyang Zhong, Hengjian Chen, Chenwei Xie, Akide Liu, Zhehan Kan, Yu Liu, Wei Zhai, Sheng Zhong, Wei Tong

WanPE turns ordinary text prompts into director-level cinematic plans, substantially improving the quality and consistency of long-form AI-generated videos.

Read analysis