Do Vision-Language Models Agree on the Affective Qualities of Shape? A Cross-Model Audit for Generative Design Interfaces

Evolutionary systems have demonstrated remarkable results in creative domains, with recent applications in generative typography, design, and music. However, an open problem remains in designing fitness functions that effectively capture the desired aesthetics of abstract outputs. In this work, we explore two methods for evaluating the aesthetics of a population using Vision-Language Models (VLMs). The first method uses CLIP-IQA to predict an aesthetic score for each design. The second method instead pits candidates against each other, with winners determined by a VLM using a custom prompt specified by the user. The outcomes of these pairwise comparisons are then used to estimate a population ranking via the Glicko rating system. We present these methods in the context of a case study using a custom generative system and compare the resulting rankings with an artist's aesthetic ranking and those produced by other aesthetic evaluation techniques. Additionally, we document the artist's experience using these approaches to evolve designs, critically analysing the strengths and weaknesses of both methods.

Automated evaluation is essential for scaling generative 3D systems, where exhaustive human review is costly and slow. However, the reliability of an automated judge depends on the entire evaluation pipeline, not only the underlying vision-language model (VLM), but also how assets are rendered, what visual evidence is provided, how the task is specified, and how human reference labels are constructed. We introduce 3D-DefectBench, a benchmark and framework for systematic analysis of VLM-based 3D defect detection pipelines. It complements holistic ratings and pairwise preferences with nine fine-grained binary defects spanning geometry, texture, and prompt adherence, providing actionable diagnostics for generator development and judge evaluation. Using a balanced factorial design, we vary four pipeline factors, VLM, camera protocol, visual input, and prompt schema, across 84 inference designs and approximately 3.2 million scored defect decisions, followed by staged validation on a broader set of frontier models. Model choice is the largest determinant of agreement with human labels, but the remaining factors also affect performance, interact with model selection, and can change the best configuration. Within the evaluated design space, a compact six-view RGB protocol performs comparably to denser multi-view settings and inputs augmented with depth or surface normals, making it a strong cost-effective default. Under this standardized pipeline, the best of 12 VLM judges still lag behind trained human labelers, while texture agreement drops sharply when expert-consensus labels are replaced by noisier silver labels. These findings show that automated judges should be evaluated as complete pipelines and calibrated across human reference regimes, rather than benchmarked only as standalone models. We release labels, prompts, predictions, and Croissant metadata on Hugging Face.

Text-to-image models now generate graphic design at production scale, yet their supervision still comes primarily from photo-style preference datasets with a single overall verdict per comparison. Designers evaluate designs along several distinct axes (e.g., typography, layout, color harmony) that a single preference label collapses. We release \emph{TASTE} \textit{(Typography, Aesthetics, Spatial, Tone, Etc.)}, a multi-dimensional preference dataset in which two disjoint cohorts of five professional designers each ranked outputs from four current text-to-image models across nine criteria along with per-image hallucination flags. We pair the dataset with two contributions. First, a criterion-agnostic signal-validation framework based on Kendall's $τ$, majority-vote probability, and Condorcet cycles against exact iid-uniform nulls; the analysis reveals significant but moderate designer agreement, with every TASTE criterion rejecting the random-rater null. Second, we benchmark preference models on TASTE and find that off-the-shelf VLM judges and dedicated T2I scorers fail to reach majority agreement with the designer panel, while a small MLP head trained directly on TASTE substantially narrows the gap to the single-rater ceiling, setting a baseline for future TASTE-trained preference models.