We present CyCLeGen, a unified vision-language foundation model capable of both image understanding and image generation within a single autoregressive framework. Unlike existing vision models that depend on separate modules for perception and synthesis, CyCLeGen adopts a fully integrated architecture that enforces cycle-consistent learning through image->layout->image and layout->image->layout generation loops. This unified formulation introduces two key advantages: introspection, enabling the model to reason about its own generations, and data efficiency, allowing self-improvement via synthetic supervision under a reinforcement learning objective guided by cycle consistency. Extensive experiments show that CyCLeGen achieves significant gains across diverse image understanding and generation benchmarks, highlighting the potential of unified vision-language foundation models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the CyCLeGen framework. CyCLeGen employs a unified autoregressive transformer that jointly performs layout understanding (image → layout) and layout-conditioned image generation (layout → image) within a shared token space. Given image tokens, the model predicts layout and text tokens through the understanding branch; conversely, conditioned on layout and text tokens, the generation branch produces image tokens. Training enforces bidirectional cycle consistency across the two directions, forming image → layout → image and layout → image → layout loops. Cycle rewards/losses encourage the generated outputs in one direction to remain structurally and semantically recoverable in the reverse direction, aligning visual understanding with controllable image generation.
Figure 2: Overview of CycleGRPO. CycleGRPO trains a unified autoregressive transformer for both layout understanding and layout-conditioned generation through two complementary directions. The Und → Gen direction ( blue arrows ) starts from an input image, where the model autoregressively predicts layouts via trajectory rollouts and decodes them into bounding boxes. The Gen → Und direction ( purple arrows ) starts from a layout prompt, where the model generates images and enforces that the generated images can recover the original layout through understanding. Multiple trajectories are sampled in both directions and optimized with GRPO, providing cycle-consistent reinforcement signals that align visual understanding with image generation.
Type
Method
# Params
mIoU(%) ↑
O-mIoU(%) ↑
SR E (%) ↑
SR R (%) ↑
CLIP Global↑
CLIP Local↑
OverlayBench-Simple
Diffusion
GLIGEN [ 18 ]
1.07B
60.54
36.22
49.99
78.72
34.17
24.75
InstanceDiff [ 29 ]
1.23B
71.21
49.99
77.71
87.49
34.25
27.69
MIGC [ 45 ]
0.86B
58.64
32.15
63.41
81.60
33.07
26.49
HiCo [ 7 ]
1.22B
69.47
47.23
67.75
86.08
35.25
27.04
CreatiLayout [ 40 ]
3.31B
58.78
32.52
72.34
84.45
37.29
27.49
Table 1: Comparison of diffusion-based and autoregressive layout-to-image generation models on the OverlayBench [ 17 ] benchmark across Simple, Regular, and Complex splits. Improvements are computed relative to PlanGen.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of layout-to-image generation. Given the same input layouts (Ground Truth), our CyCLeGen model produces images that more faithfully preserve object geometry, spatial configuration, and fine-grained structure compared to PlanGen and diffusion-based baselines (InstanceDiff [ 29 ] , HiCo [ 7 ] , CreatiLayout [ 40 ] ). Across diverse scenes—including people, architectural facades, cable cars, and airplanes—CyCLeGen demonstrates stronger adherence to layout constraints and generates visually coherent, detail-rich images.
Type
Method
Region-wise Quality
Global-wise Quality
Spatial ↑
Color ↑
Texture ↑
Shape ↑
Pick ↑
FID ↓
IS ↑
Real Images
98.95
98.45
98.90
98.80
-
-
-
Diffusion
GLIGEN [ 18 ]
77.53
49.41
55.29
52.72
20.78
21.92
20.57
InstanceDiff [ 29 ]
87.99
69.16
72.78
71.08
21.01
19.67
20.02
MIGC [ 45 ]
85.66
66.97
71.24
69.06
20.71
21.19
19.65
Hico [ 7 ]
90.22
69.89
73.95
72.75
22.44
19.30
22.50
Table 2: Layout-to-image quantitative comparison on the LayoutSAM-Eval [ 40 ] benchmark. We report region-wise quality (Spatial, Color, Texture, Shape) and global perceptual metrics (PickScore, FID, IS).
Setting
AP ↑
AP50 ↑
AP75 ↑
AR ↑
GroundingDINO [ 20 ]
42.53
47.20
44.60
83.61
Janus-Pro [ 5 ]
9.05
13.68
7.20
14.67
PlanGen-baseline [ 11 ]
27.66
33.94
30.56
51.58
CyCLeGen (ours)
28.33 ( +0.67 )
36.99 ( +3.05 )
30.81 ( +0.25 )
71.05 ( +19.47 )
Table 3: Quantitative results on layout understanding evaluated on the LayoutSamEval benchmark [ 40 ] . We compare our model with the PlanGen baseline, along with strong vision-language and detection baselines, including Grounding-DINO [ 20 ] and Janus-Pro [ 5 ] . Metrics include AP, AP50, AP75, and AR. Improvements are computed relative to PlanGen.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of layout understanding results. We compare CyCLeGen (top) with PlanGen (middle) and GroundingDINO (bottom) across diverse scenes. CyCLeGen produces more complete and precise detections, with fewer missed objects, cleaner bounding boxes, and more semantically coherent structured descriptions. In contrast, PlanGen often yields fragmented boxes, duplicated predictions, and under-detection in complex scenes. These results demonstrate that our cycle-consistent training substantially boosts structural grounding quality.
Method
BLEU-1 ↑
BLEU-2 ↑
BLEU-3 ↑
BLEU-4 ↑
METEOR ↑
ROUGE-L ↑
CIDEr ↑
Janus-Pro [ 5 ]
35.26
19.73
11.19
6.66
21.78
26.04
12.80
PlanGen-baseline [ 11 ]
43.06
30.20
22.68
17.92
21.92
33.81
37.48
CyCLeGen (ours) SFT
51.72 ( +8.66 )
37.97 ( +7.77 )
29.27 ( +6.60 )
23.58 ( +5.66 )
25.43 ( +3.51 )
40.10 ( +6.29 )
57.90 ( +20.42 )
RL w/o cycle
46.63 (+3.57)
31.83 (+1.63)
23.20 (+0.52)
17.99 (+0.07)
21.85 (-0.07)
34.92 (+1.11)
38.86 (+1.38)
CyCLeGen (ours) RL
52.99 ( +9.93 )
39.91 ( +9.71 )
31.41 ( +8.73 )
25.68 ( +7.76 )
26.84 ( +4.92 )
42.35 ( +8.54 )
66.46 ( +28.98 )
Table 4: Quantitative comparison of the image captioning performance on the LayoutSamEval benchmark [ 40 ] . We report BLEU-1/2/3/4, METEOR, ROUGE-L, and CIDEr scores for the baseline PlanGen [ 11 ] and Janus Pro [ 5 ] , our SFT-variant model, and reinforcement learning. Note that CyCLeGen has not been trained on this captioning task, yet, it demonstrates a substantial improvement over the baselines, clearly demonstrating the strong advantage of adding the cycle-consistency to the basic visual foundation model. Improvements are computed relative to PlanGen.
Model
AP ↑
AP50 ↑
AP75 ↑
AR ↑
Spatial ↑
Color ↑
Texture ↑
Shape ↑
PlanGen
27.66
33.94
30.56
51.58
92.21
82.69
86.53
85.36
PlanGen- Und
28.00
37.78
29.40
48.17
88.16 (-4.05)
76.92 (-5.77)
80.71 (-5.82)
79.71 (-5.65)
PlanGen- Gen
8.41 (-19.25)
16.33 (-17.61)
7.27 (-23.29)
17.62 (-33.96)
91.41
81.83
85.84
84.81
PlanGen- Joint
24.28 (-3.38)
34.26 (+0.32)
25.38 (-5.18)
45.54 (-6.04)
91.00 (-1.21)
81.75 (-0.94)
85.64 (-0.89)
84.28 (-1.08)
PlanGen- w/o cycle
27.83 (+0.17)
36.77 (+2.83)
29.63 (-0.93)
51.61 (+0.03)
91.72 (-0.49)
82.45 (-0.24)
86.78 (+0.25)
86.19 (+0.83)
CyCLeGen (ours)
28.33 ( +0.67 )
36.99 ( +3.05 )
30.81 ( +0.25 )
71.05 ( +19.47 )
92.71 (+0.50)
84.22 (+1.53)
87.97 (+1.44)
87.02 (+1.66)
Table 5: Comparison with PlanGen and our variants on LayoutSAM-Eval [ 40 ] . Understanding metrics are on the left, and generation metrics on the right.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Type
Method
HPSv2
Diffusion
InstanceDiff [ 29 ]
21.25
HiCo [ 7 ]
27.51
CreatiLayout [ 40 ]
25.95
AR
PlanGen [ 11 ]
24.50
CyCLeGen (ours)
25.96
Appendix
Table 6: HPSv2 comparison between diffusion-based methods and autoregressive models.
Method
Pick ↑
FID ↓
IS ↑
GT Layout
21.53
15.62
20.42
PlanGen
21.40
16.18
20.18
CyCLeGen
21.32
19.27
21.05
Appendix
Table 7: Layout planning quantitative comparison of CyCLeGen with Plangen [ 11 ] and GT layout on LayoutSAM-Eval [ 40 ] .
Setting
AP ↑
AP50 ↑
AP75 ↑
AR ↑
Spatial ↑
Color ↑
Texture ↑
Shape ↑
PlanGen
27.66
33.94
30.56
51.58
92.21
82.69
86.53
85.36
w / o SFT
27.89
36.77
30.62
62.91
92.69
83.79
87.29
86.46
CyCLeGen
28.33
36.99
30.81
71.05
92.71
84.22
87.97
87.02
Δ
+0.44
+0.22
+0.19
+8.14
+0.02
+0.43
+0.68
+0.56
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison between PlanGen, training without SFT, and CyCLeGen. Understanding metrics are on the left, and generation metrics on the right. Improvements are computed relative to the case without SFT.
Method
LocalCLIP ↑
IS ↑
SR (%) ↑
PlanGen
25.28
9.08
14.50
CycleGen
25.31
9.18
17.00
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison of image editing performance between PlanGen and CyCLeGen. Higher is better for all metrics.
Method
LocalCLIP ↓
IS ↑
SR (%) ↑
PlanGen
23.08
9.37
87.50
CycleGen
22.92
9.09
86.00
Appendix
Table 10: Object removal results on 200 samples from the COCO test set. Higher is better for all metrics, except for LocalCLIP.
In this work, we present EchoGen, a unified framework for layout-to-image generation and image grounding, capable of generating images with accurate layouts and high fidelity to text descriptions (e.g., spatial relationships), while grounding the image robustly at the same time. We believe that image grounding possesses strong text and layout understanding abilities, which can compensate for the corresponding limitations in layout-to-image generation. At the same time, images generated from layouts exhibit high diversity in content, thereby enhancing the robustness of image grounding. Jointly training both tasks within a unified model can promote performance improvements for each. However, we identify that this joint training paradigm encounters several optimization challenges and results in restricted performance. To address these issues, we propose progressive training strategies. First, the Parallel Multi-Task Pre-training (PMTP) stage equips the model with basic abilities for both tasks, leveraging shared tokens to accelerate training. Next, the Dual Joint Optimization (DJO) stage exploits task duality to sequentially integrate the two tasks, enabling unified optimization. Finally, the Cycle RL stage eliminates reliance on visual supervision by using consistency constraints as rewards, significantly enhancing the model's unified capabilities via the GRPO strategy. Extensive experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art results on both layout-to-image generation and image grounding benchmarks, and reveal clear synergistic gains from optimizing the two tasks together.
Kai Zou, Hongbo Liu, Dian Zheng +3
School of Cyber Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of China · Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Digital Security · Tongji University +3
Most unified large multimodal models (LMMs) that support both visual understanding and image generation still rely on curated post-training supervision, such as human annotations, preference labels, or external reward models. We ask whether a unified LMM can improve both abilities autonomously using only unlabeled images. We propose a self-evolving training framework with three internal roles: a Proposer that generates visual questions, a Solver that answers and evaluates them, and a Generator that synthesizes images. Training uses only self-derived consistency signals, without human annotations, preference labels, or task-trained external reward/judge models. To stabilize learning, we introduce Solver Token Entropy (STE), a continuous difficulty signal based on token-level prediction uncertainty that remains useful even when sample-level consistency becomes unreliable. For image generation, we design a multi-scale internal evaluation scheme that combines question-answer fidelity scoring with cycle-consistent captioning. This creates a solver-mediated coupling, where better visual understanding enables more reliable generation assessment and stronger internal training signals. The framework preserves the same role decomposition, reward logic, and training schedule across diffusion-based BLIP3o, rectified-flow BAGEL, and autoregressive VARGPT-v1.1 architectures, requiring only each backbone's native prompting and generation interface. Across eight understanding metrics, our method consistently improves over the corresponding base models. On BAGEL, it achieves a +3.5% absolute gain on MMMU and improves GenEval image generation performance from 82% to 85%. Code and models are publicly released.
We present ABACUS, a unified vision-language model that jointly addresses object counting, crowd counting, referring-expression counting, and count-faithful image generation within a single 3B-parameter model. ABACUS introduces three contributions: density-aware adaptive zooming paired with an objectness map from multi-head self-attention decomposition to spatially ground count predictions; a boundary-aware count policy trained via GRPO with nested local, boundary, and global rewards to eliminate over- and undercounting at crop boundaries; and a cycle-consistent GRPO strategy in which the frozen understanding branch scores generated candidates on count-deviation and aesthetic quality, closing the understanding-generation synergy gap without any external critic or annotation. ABACUS achieves state-of-the-art results across seven benchmarks spanning object counting (FSC-147, CARPK), crowd counting (ShanghaiTech A/B), referring-expression counting (REC-8K), count-faithful generation (CoCoCount, T2I-CompBench, GenEval), and count reasoning (CountQA), surpassing both task-specific specialists and larger generalist models. Project page is at https://mondalanindya.github.io/pages/ABACUS.
Anindya Mondal, Sauradip Nag, Anjan Dutta
University of Surrey, United Kingdom & Simon Fraser University, Canada · University of Surrey, United Kingdom