NumBench: Diagnosing Counting Failures in Text-to-Image Models

Text-to-image models are typically reported on average-case prompts, which understates the gap between systems on compositionally demanding requests involving precise object counts, multi-object attribute binding, legible embedded text, and explicit spatial constraints. We evaluate four production text-to-image systems: Hunyuan 3.0, Gemini 3 Pro Image ("Nano Banana Pro"), Black Forest Labs FLUX.2, and Ideogram 3.0. The evaluation uses the 48 hardest prompts drawn from the DataSeeds.AI Sample Dataset (DSD), selected through an automated complexity-scoring pass over the full corpus. Every generated image is graded using an independent-judge rubric. GPT-5.4-Pro authors an atomic, weighted, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE) evaluation rubric, while Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview independently determines whether each criterion is satisfied. Gemini 3 Pro Image ranks first with a score of 84.8/100, narrowly ahead of FLUX.2 at 82.3/100. Ideogram 3.0 and Hunyuan 3.0 score 65.7/100 and 63.3/100, respectively. Failure analysis shows that the leading systems primarily lose points through object miscounting and geometric artifacts, whereas the trailing systems more frequently produce garbled text. Ideogram 3.0 also frequently omits requested elements. Full per-sample rubrics, scores, and failure annotations are available from the authors upon request.

Modern text-to-image (T2I) models often have similar total scores but different strengths, making practical selection difficult. Fine-grained benchmarks decompose prompts into questions, yet often return them to prompt scores and fixed categories, weakening attribution and ignoring complexity. Related requirements are also scored separately or as one total, obscuring basic versus compositional failure. We present QC-T2I-Bench, a question-centric framework that converts open prompts into attributed atomic questions and organizes their dependencies with Davidsonian Scene Graphs (DSGs). We use hierarchy-constrained question aggregation to exclude downstream questions after a prerequisite fails and to prevent simple and complex prompts from receiving the same total weight. We then use the DSG structure to measure joint success within prompts and compare repeated entities across prompts, separating basic realization failures from failures under additional requirements. We evaluate multiple open-source T2I models on English and Chinese prompts. The resulting question-level evidence supports reliable ranking and fine-grained diagnosis: joint completion falls from 80.7% for components with two capabilities to 37.2% for those with seven or more. Finally, we reuse the same records for training-free routing; our cost-aware router matches ERNIE's 89.51-point estimate with 21.3% less GPU-s/MP.

Text-to-Image (T2I) models have recently achieved impressive visual fidelity, yet their evaluation remains constrained by benchmarks that are often difficult to interpret and insufficiently diagnostic. Existing skill-based evaluations tend to overlook critical failure modes that strongly impact usability but fall outside standard taxonomies, such as global incoherence arising from missing parts or physically implausible configurations (e.g., floating objects). In addition, prompt difficulty is typically controlled along a single dimension; either prompt length or the number of elements to generate. To address these limitations, we introduce Imag-Eval, a controlled benchmark designed to assess how T2I models ground compositional natural-language instructions into visual outputs. Unlike prior work that conflates surface linguistic complexity with compositional difficulty, Imag-Eval explicitly seeks to disentangles these factors by independently varying both the number of instances and the combination of constraints (rules), while avoiding error propagation. This design enables fine-grained and interpretable analysis of where cross-modal instruction following fails. Our benchmark comprises 1,140 prompts and 8,842 combined rules, and we evaluate it on several state-of-the-art models. Complementing this analysis with an additional study of over 2,000 prompts from a concurrent benchmark, our results suggest that, for structured skills, compositional difficulty is primarily governed by the number of grounded rules and their binding to instances,, rather than by prompt length alone.