Beauty in the Eye of AI: Aligning LLMs and Vision Models with Human Aesthetics in Network Visualization

Graphic layouts serve as an important and engaging medium for visual communication across different channels. While recent layout generation models have demonstrated impressive capabilities, they frequently fail to align with nuanced human aesthetic judgment. Existing preference datasets and reward models trained on text-to-image generation do not generalize to layout evaluation, where the spatial arrangement of identical elements determines quality. To address this critical gap, we introduce DesignSense-10k, a large-scale dataset of 10,235 human-annotated preference pairs for graphic layout evaluation. We propose a five-stage curation pipeline that generates visually coherent layout transformations across diverse aspect ratios, using semantic grouping, layout prediction, filtering, clustering, and VLM-based refinement to produce high-quality comparison pairs. Human preferences are annotated using a 4-class scheme (left, right, both good, both bad) to capture subjective ambiguity. Leveraging this dataset, we train DesignSense, a vision-language model-based classifier that substantially outperforms existing open-source and proprietary models across comprehensive evaluation metrics (54.6% improvement in Macro F1 over the strongest proprietary baseline). Our analysis shows that frontier VLMs remain unreliable overall and fail catastrophically on the full four-class task, underscoring the need for specialized, preference-aware models. Beyond the dataset, our reward model DesignSense yields tangible downstream gains in layout generation. Using our judge during RL based training improves generator win rate by about 3%, while inference-time scaling, which involves generating multiple candidates and selecting the best one, provides a 3.6% improvement. These results highlight the practical impact of specialized, layout-aware preference modeling on real-world layout generation quality.

Assessing the aesthetic quality of graphic design is central to visual communication, yet remains underexplored in vision language models (VLMs). We investigate whether VLMs can evaluate design aesthetics in ways comparable to humans. Prior work faces three key limitations: benchmarks restricted to narrow principles and coarse evaluation protocols, a lack of systematic VLM comparisons, and limited training data for model improvement. In this work, we introduce AesEval-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark spanning four dimensions, twelve indicators, and three fully quantifiable tasks: aesthetic judgment, region selection, and precise localization. Then, we systematically evaluate proprietary, open-source, and reasoning-augmented VLMs, revealing clear performance gaps against the nuanced demands of aesthetic assessment. Moreover, we construct a training dataset to fine-tune VLMs for this domain, leveraging human-guided VLM labeling to produce task labels at scale and indicator-grounded reasoning to tie abstract indicators to concrete design regions.Together, our work establishes the first systematic framework for aesthetic quality assessment in graphic design. Our code and dataset will be released at: https://github.com/arctanxarc/AesEval-Bench

Vision-language models (VLMs) can describe urban scenes in rich detail, yet consistently fail to produce reliable human preference labels in domain-specific tasks such as safety assessment and aesthetic evaluation. The standard fix, fine-tuning or RLHF, requires large-scale annotations and model retraining. We ask a different question: can a frozen VLM be aligned with human preferences without modifying any weights? Our key insight is that VLMs are strong concept extractors but poor decision calibrators. We propose a three-stage post-hoc pipeline that exploits this asymmetry: (i) interpretable evaluation dimensions are automatically mined from consensus exemplars; (ii) an Observer-Debater-Judge chain extracts robust concept scores from the frozen VLM; and (iii) locally-weighted ridge regression on a hybrid manifold calibrates these scores to human ratings. Applied as UrbanAlign on Place Pulse 2.0, the framework reaches 72.2% accuracy (kappa=0.45) across six perception categories, outperforming all baselines by +11.0 pp and zero-shot VLM by +15.5 pp, with full interpretability and zero weight modification.