On the Limitations of Cross-Lingual Consistency in Multilingual Text-to-image Generation

The steady improvements of text-to-image (T2I) generative models lead to slow deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks that rely on static datasets, motivating researchers to seek alternative ways to evaluate T2I progress. We present Multimodal Text-to-Image Eval (MT2IE), an evaluation framework in which a single multimodal large language model (MLLM) acts as an evaluator agent, iteratively generating the evaluation prompts and scoring the resulting images. We show that MT2IE's image-text consistency scores have higher correlation with human judgment than metrics previously introduced in the literature. MT2IE generates prompts that are efficient at probing T2I model performance: closely recovering the official T2I model rankings of three structurally distinct benchmarks from just 20 generated evaluation prompts, 28-105x fewer than the benchmarks' own prompt sets. When compared to existing evaluation metrics such as CLIPScore, VIEScore, and VQAScore, MT2IE's T2I model rankings are more faithful and far more consistent across multiple evaluation seeds when using the same number of prompts. MT2IE can also adapt evaluation to the model being tested: rewriting each prompt based on the model's own measured performance to produce a bespoke per-model benchmark that still recovers the official rankings and keeps the evaluated model in an informative scoring range. We hope that these results will encourage the development of dynamic and interactive evaluation frameworks, and mitigate the deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks.

Recent text-to-image generation models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in synthesizing highly realistic images from text inputs alone. Although existing benchmarks can evaluate the generation capabilities of various models to some extent, they struggle to comprehensively and accurately measure performance across multiple dimensions, often failing to reveal the inherent deficiencies of models in specific categories. To address these limitations, we propose WeGenBench, a novel benchmark designed for the comprehensive, multi-perspective evaluation of text-to-image generation capabilities. Our benchmark comprises a total of 4,000 test prompts across two primary categories, meticulously balanced between Chinese and English to evaluate bilingual and cross-cultural generation capabilities. Beyond macroscopic scene classification, we annotate each prompt with multi-dimensional tags tailored to the distinct content and challenges of each language, thereby refining the generation tasks into more specific sub-categories. Through a cross-dimensional evaluation mechanism leveraging both scene classifications and multi-dimensional tags, WeGenBench can precisely pinpoint model shortcomings in specific generation categories. Furthermore, to measure generation quality more accurately, we design and validate several novel evaluation metrics by integrating Vision-Language Models (VLMs), which assess model performance on domain-specific tasks from three core aspects. Crucially, our approach yields both the assessment outcomes and the detailed reasoning trajectories, facilitating a rigorous verification of the accuracy and soundness of the evaluation results. Finally, we conduct systematic benchmarking on current state-of-the-art methods and provide an in-depth analysis of the limitations present in existing models.

Text-in-image editing has become a key capability for visual content creation, yet existing benchmarks remain overwhelmingly English-centric and often conflate visual plausibility with semantic correctness. We introduce MULTITEXTEDIT, a controlled benchmark of 3,600 instances spanning 12 typologically diverse languages, 5 visual domains, and 7 editing operations. Language variants of each instance share a common visual base and are paired with a human-edited reference and region masks, isolating the language variable for cross-lingual comparison. To capture script-level errors that coarse text-matching metrics miss, such as missing diacritics, reversed RTL order, and mixed-script renderings, we introduce a language fidelity (LSF) metric scored by a two-stage LVM protocol that first traces the edited target text and then judges it in isolation, reaching a quadratic-weighted \k{appa} of 0.76 against native-speaker annotators. Evaluating 12 open-source and proprietary systems with LSF alongside standard semantic and mask-aware pixel metrics, we find pronounced cross-lingual degradation for every model, largest on Hebrew and Arabic and smallest on Dutch and Spanish, and concentrated in text accuracy and script fidelity rather than in coarse structural dimensions. We also uncover a pervasive semantic and pixel mismatch, where outputs preserve global layout and background fidelity yet distort script-specific forms.