Slides serve as a critical medium for conveying information in presentation-oriented scenarios such as academia, education, and business. Despite their importance, creating high-quality slide decks remains time-consuming and cognitively demanding. Recent advances in generative models, such as Nano Banana Pro, have made automated slide generation increasingly feasible. However, existing evaluations of slide generation are often coarse-grained and rely on holistic judgments, making it difficult to accurately assess model capabilities or track meaningful advances in the field. In practice, the lack of fine-grained, verifiable evaluation criteria poses a critical bottleneck for both research and real-world deployment. In this paper, we propose PresentBench, a fine-grained, rubric-based benchmark for evaluating automated real-world slide generation. It contains 238 evaluation instances, each supplemented with background materials required for slide creation. Moreover, we manually design an average of 54.1 checklist items per instance, each formulated as a binary question, to enable fine-grained, instance-specific evaluation of the generated slide decks. Extensive experiments show that PresentBench provides more reliable evaluation results than existing methods, and exhibits significantly stronger alignment with human preferences. Furthermore, our benchmark reveals that NotebookLM significantly outperforms other slide generation methods, highlighting substantial recent progress in this domain.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performance comparison of various slide generation systems on the PPTEval evaluation framework and PresentBench. PresentBench adopts a stricter scoring scheme and poses a greater challenge to slide generation systems.
Figure 2: Comparison of coarse-grained, instance-agnostic (M)LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation frameworks and PresentBench.
Benchmark
Full Deck Generation
Background-based
Instance-specific Criteria
Fine-grained Criteria
SlidesBench Ge et al. (2025)
×
×
×
×
PPTBench Huang et al. (2025)
×
×
×
×
PPTEval Zheng et al. (2025)
✓
✓
×
×
PPTArena Ofengenden et al. (2025)
×
×
✓
×
SlidesGen-Bench Yang et al. (2026)
✓
✓
✓
×
PresentBench (Ours)
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: Comparison of slide generation benchmarks.
Figure 3: The construction and evaluation workflow of PresentBench. (a) Benchmark construction (left and middle): Experts collect and filter diverse data sources into five domains (e.g., Academia and Education), and design instance-specific, fine-grained instructions and checklists to formulate concrete slide generation tasks. (b) Evaluation (right): The slide agent generates a slide deck based on the instructions and corresponding materials, followed by an automated assessment in which a judge MLLM utilizes the structured checklist to conduct the evaluation and yields a report with per-item decisions and supporting evidence, which is then aggregated into an overall score.
Figure 4: The distribution of PresentBench. “Ads” denotes the Advertising category.
Figure 5: Distribution of the number of input tokens (left) and the number of checklist items (right).
Statistics
Number
Total evaluation instances
238
Academia evaluation instances
91
Advertising evaluation instances
16
Economics evaluation instances
41
Education evaluation instances
60
Talk evaluation instances
30
Table 2: Key statistics of PresentBench. “Fundamentals”, “Visual”, “Completeness”, “Correctness”, and “Fidelity” denote “Presentation Fundamentals”, “Visual Design and Layout”, “Content Completeness”, “Content Correctness”, and “Content Fidelity”, respectively.
Method
Total
Academia
Advertising
Education
Economics
Talk
NotebookLM
62.5
68.6
54.9
55.0
58.2
69.2
Manus 1.6
57.8
64.0
52.4
50.7
52.8
63.0
Gamma
49.2
54.4
46.7
47.8
35.1
56.3
Doubao
48.0
50.3
42.9
45.4
44.0
54.7
Tiangong
54.7
59.2
44.5
53.7
46.5
59.8
Zhipu
53.6
57.5
41.0
52.5
47.6
59.0
Table 3: Comparative results across five domains. The highest scores are highlighted in red , and the second-highest scores are highlighted in blue .
Method
Fundamentals
Visual & Layout
Content Completeness
Content Correctness
Content Fidelity
NotebookLM
81.0
62.8
67.8
56.0
45.1
Manus 1.6
80.1
53.7
63.6
46.2
45.4
Gamma
66.9
22.6
54.3
47.7
54.1
Doubao
71.8
40.7
58.2
34.7
34.8
Tiangong
77.7
47.2
68.8
45.7
34.3
Zhipu
73.3
40.6
63.0
47.1
44.1
Table 4: Comparative results across five evaluation dimensions. The highest scores are highlighted in red , and the second-highest scores are highlighted in blue . “Fundamentals” and “Visual & Layout” denote “Presentation Fundamentals” and “Visual Design and Layout”, respectively.
Metric Variant
Fundamentals
Visual & Layout
Completeness
Correctness
Fidelity
Spearman’s ρ
Full
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
0.532
Material-Independent Only
×
×
✓
✓
✓
0.319
Material-Dependent Only
✓
✓
×
×
×
0.629
w/o Fundamentals
×
✓
✓
✓
✓
0.490
w/o Visual & Layout
✓
×
✓
✓
✓
0.453
w/o Completeness
✓
✓
×
✓
✓
0.477
Table 5: Dimension-wise evaluation results and human alignment. “Fundamentals”, “Visual & Layout”, “Completeness”, “Correctness”, and “Fidelity” denote “Presentation Fundamentals”, “Visual Design and Layout”, “Content Completeness”, “Content Correctness”, and “Content Fidelity”, respectively.
Evaluation Method
Spearman’s ρ
PresentBench (Ours)
0.532
PPTEval
0.303
MLLM-as-a-Judge Ranking
0.258
Human
0.664
Table 6: Human alignment results across different evaluation methods.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Data Source
Language
Count
Academia
ICLR 2025 papers
English
5
ICLR 2024 papers
English
5
ICML 2025 papers
English
5
ICML 2024 papers
English
5
CVPR 2025 papers
English
10
CVPR 2024 papers
English
5
Appendix
Table 7: Detailed composition of the dataset.
Figure 6: The evaluation report provides a detailed explanation for the passed checklist item.
Figure 7: The evaluation report identifies missing content.
Figure 8: The evaluation report identifies specific content errors and inconsistencies between the generated slides and the background materials.
Figure 9: The evaluation report identifies design inconsistencies.