We formulate Artistic Intelligence as exploration driven world realization, leaving space for creative possibility while preserving the semantic, artistic, and compositional structure that must remain true. Moonworks Lunara, a text-to-image model, implements this framework with a novel Diffusion Mixture Transformer architecture. A new training algorithm iteratively evolves the data distribution through informative sample acquisition and targeted injection of human-created art. We benchmark Lunara against seven image-generation models, including FLUX.2-Klein-4B, Qwen-Image (20B), and GPT-Image-1-Mini. With GPT-5.6 Sol as evaluator, Lunara ranks first in Aesthetic Quality (8.473 vs. 8.457 GPT-Image-1-mini), second in Emotional Resonance, and remains competitive in Content Integrity. A blind human evaluation over the same evaluation set corroborates the automated metrics, ranking Lunara first. It also stays among the strongest models under conventional measures including CLIPScore and LAION Aesthetic Predictor. On GenEval, Lunara achieves competitive performance against a broader set of 16 models, including GPT Image 2 and Seedream 4.0. These results place Lunara at the frontier with Artistic Intelligence while maintaining a sub-10B active-parameter footprint and sub-10-second inference latency. Lunara advances the general visual intelligence frontier by shifting the question from whether models can get images right to how deeply they can interpret meaning and realize it as imaginative, expressive worlds.
Figures & tables
Figure 1
Figure 1: Performance landscape across artistic performance and content integrity. Lunara occupies the artistic frontier, leading in aesthetic quality and emotional resonance while maintaining competitive content integrity at sub-10B active parameters and fast inference.
Figure 2: Examples generated by Lunara.
Figure 3: Comparison of images generated by Lunara and other models. FLUX and Z-Image-Turbo often produce photorealistic outputs even when prompted for digital art. GPT-image-1 Mini and demonstrates strong aesthetic quality but AuraFlow lacks content integrity, while Lunara performs strongly across both aesthetic quality and content integrity.
Figure 4: Overview of the Lunara architecture and iterative training data acquisition pipeline. Text and optional image input are encoded and transformed into semantic, artistic, and compositional representations, which guide active Mixture for image generation. A VLM identifies informative samples for semantic variation, which are added to the training set alongside selective human-created artwork.
Figure 5: Examples of semantic variations in original artwork. Each pair shows an anchor image (left) and a semantically modified variant (right).
Aesthetic Quality
Emotional Resonance
Content Integrity
Automatic Metrics
Model
Score ↑
Win Rate
Score ↑
Win Rate
Score ↑
Win Rate
CLIP ↑
LAION ↑
Score
Aesthetic
Moonworks Lunara
8.473
23.3 %
8.119
17.5 %
7.944
4.7%
0.792
6.721
GPT 1 Image Mini
8.457
18.9 %
8.363
31.7 %
8.609
28.8 %
0.777
6.661
Qwen Image
8.366
15.9%
7.979
10.7%
8.345
29.6 %
0.789
6.561
AuraFlow
8.313
18.9 %
8.011
15.9%
6.662
1.1%
0.781
6.745
Table 1: Overall model performance across 1,000 prompts. Scores and win rates are reported independently for Aesthetic Quality, Emotion, Resonance, and Content Integrity. CLIPScore and LAION Aesthetic are reported as automatic evaluation metrics. Best results are shown in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Style
GPT1mini
Lunara
Qwen
AuraFlow
SD3.5
HiDream-I1
FLUX-Klein-4
Z-Image-T
Aesthetic Quality
Arabic Portrait
8.383
7.961
8.128
8.528
7.825
7.725
7.722
6.722
Arabic Painting
8.464
8.161
8.342
8.411
7.869
8.011
8.161
7.025
NodiBangla
8.267
8.736
7.953
7.975
7.397
7.750
7.758
7.153
Digital Art
8.419
8.650
8.553
8.389
8.164
8.108
8.278
7.283
Chinese Oil Painting
8.380
8.540
8.066
8.194
8.243
7.940
8.123
7.814
Table 2: Performance across style categories for Aesthetic Quality , Emotional Resonance , and Content Integrity . Best results within each category are shown in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Model
Single-Obj
Two-Obj (%)
Count
Color
Avg
Nano Banana 2.0
1.00 (1)
0.96 (3)
0.71 (8)
0.84 (6)
0.88 (6)
Seedream-4.0
1.00 (1)
0.92 (5)
0.71 (8)
0.93 (1)
0.89 (5)
GPT Image 1 [High]
0.99 (2)
0.92 (5)
0.85 (2)
0.92 (2)
0.92 (3)
GPT Image 2
0.99 (2)
0.98 (2)
0.85 (2)
0.93 (1)
0.94 (1)
PixArt
0.98 (3)
0.50 (12)
0.44 (13)
0.80 (10)
0.68 (13)
Show-o
0.95 (5)
0.52 (11)
0.49 (11)
0.82 (8)
0.70 (12)
Table 3: Image generation model evaluation results. Lunara achieves a color score just behind GPT Image 2 and Seedream-4.0. Dense ranks are shown in parentheses; lower ranks are better.
Model
Evaluations
Aesthetic Quality ↑
Emotional Resonance ↑
Content Integrity ↑
Moonworks Lunara
1000
7.70
7.71
7.89
HiDream-I1 Fast
143
7.34
7.22
7.70
AuraFlow
143
7.31
7.26
7.10
GPT 1 Image Mini
143
7.14
7.22
7.71
Qwen Image
142
7.10
7.01
7.70
SD 3.5 Turbo
143
7.08
6.94
7.17
Table 4: Average human-evaluation scores for Aesthetic Quality, Emotional Resonance, and Content Integrity. Lunara is fixed in every pairwise comparison, with each prompt randomly assigned to a comparison model as the opponent. Scores are reported on a 10-point scale. The best result in each category is shown in bold , and the second-best result is underlined .
Figure 6: Derived head-to-head human preference win rates. Lunara outperforms all comparison models. Each opponent’s reported overall win rate is treated as its pairwise win rate against Lunara, with Lunara’s win rate calculated as the reminder to 100%.
Figure 7: Blind human evaluation examples. Names of the models were hidden during the evaluation.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8: Additional blinded human evaluation results. Names of the models were hidden during the evaluation.
Figure 9: Additional blinded human evaluation results. Names of the models were hidden during the evaluation.
Text-to-Image (T2I) diffusion models have made rapid progress on semantic alignment (generating what is described in the prompt), yet users still lack reliable control over aesthetic composition (how visual elements are put together). Prior work often treats aesthetics as a single, preference-driven notion (e.g., "high quality", "detailed", "breathtaking"), which does not map cleanly to compositional intent. We propose Aesthetic Alignment: aligning generated images to explicit, user-specified compositional constraints. We operationalize these constraints using the Principles of Art (PoA)-e.g., Balance, Rhythm, and Emphasis-commonly used in art education to describe composition. To support this task, we introduce CompArt, a dataset of 80,032 WikiArt images augmented with captions and PoA analyses produced by a multimodal LLM under structured prompting. We further propose ArtDapter, a lightweight and disentangled adapter that enables steering a pretrained T2I model along 10 PoA dimensions while retaining the base model's semantic capability. Experiments on CompArt show improved adherence to PoA controls over strong baselines under a dual evaluation protocol.
Text-to-Image generation has evolved from basic image synthesis into a frequently used core capability in professional creative workflows, where simple text-image alignment can no longer satisfy users' pressing demands for faithful real-world reconstruction and genuine creative expression. Existing benchmarks, however, remain anchored in these foundational criteria and do not yet capture the nuanced capabilities that matter in authentic artistic practice, making it difficult to reliably distinguish state-of-the-art T2I models. To address the gap, we introduce Qwen-Image-Bench, a creator-centric benchmark co-designed with professional artists and grounded in real-world creation scenarios. Qwen-Image-Bench enriches conventional evaluation with two application-driven dimensions: Real-world Fidelity and Creative Generation. Drawing on the staged reasoning inherent in professional artistic workflows, we organize these five pillars into a top-down hierarchical taxonomy that further decomposes into 23 second-level sub-capabilities and 56 third-level verifiable rubrics. To ensure broad coverage, we curate 1000 stratified prompts with each prompt jointly exercising more than four fine-grained facets across multiple pillars. We train a unified judge model Q-Judger based on Qwen3.6-27B, supervised by 80 professional annotators from global art academies under blind labeling and triple-review protocols, that scores every image across all 56 verifiable facets, producing fine-grained, rubric-grounded, and fully attributable diagnostics rather than a single opaque score. Empirically, Qwen-Image-Bench reliably distinguishes leading T2I models, achieving the greatest separation on the two application-driven dimensions of Real-world Fidelity and Creative Generation where existing benchmarks provide little insight, while also providing a trustworthy optimization signal for production-level T2I development.
Recent text-to-image generation models have achieved remarkable visual quality, but improving them through post-training remains challenging because no single reward signal captures the full range of human preference. In this work, we develop a simple and effective post-training recipe for open-domain text-to-image generation based on the composition of complementary reward signals. Our reward system consists of two main components: a preference reward, trained on large-scale human preference data using a Bradley-Terry objective to capture overall human aesthetic and perceptual preferences, and rubric-based rewards, which explicitly evaluate prompt faithfulness and other desirable properties while providing safeguards against reward hacking. A key challenge is how to combine these heterogeneous reward signals. We show that a naive weighted average leads to suboptimal optimization behavior, and propose a simple reward composition strategy that more effectively balances preference optimization with rubric satisfaction. In the Arena text-to-image leaderboard (https://arena.ai/), our RL-trained Flux2dev achieves an Elo rating 69 points above the base model, and our post-trained Ideogram-4 surpasses every open-source model on the leaderboard, reaching an Elo of 1223.5. (Claims of state-of-the-art performance are based on the Arena leaderboard snapshot as of September 4, 2026.) Our results suggest that effective rewards for frontier generative-model training require broad coverage of user intent and robustness to exploitation under optimization. To support reproducible research, we release Arena-T2I-Training, a 1K subset of training data that recovers some gains of full-scale training, providing a resource that we hope will facilitate future work on post-training for text-to-image models.