Design Anything, Design at Scale

Transforming multimodal sources into condensed and structured media outputs can be fundamentally conceptualized as a long-horizon agentic process centered on a model-harness system. While an ideal harness system should align with human design priors and accumulate reusable experience through empirical exploration to drive recursive self-improvement, existing paradigms remain static and fall short of this capability. In this paper, we present AutoDesign, a framework that aligns with human design priors, where a meta-harness optimizer guides a code agent to recursively improve harness based on rollout feedback. To instantiate and evaluate this framework, we focus on the academic paper-to-poster generation task and introduce PosterBench, comprising a 100-paper Main Track spanning five disciplines and PosterBench-mini, a shared 10-paper subset for controlled evaluation. On the PosterBench Main Track, AutoDesign achieves the highest score of 78.32, surpassing the closed-source commercial system Claude Design by 7.45 points. Across seven controlled code-agent-model configurations, integrating the learned DesignHarness consistently improves performance, increasing the average PosterBench Score from 54.99 to 67.39 (+12.4%). In a fully autonomous long-horizon loop, it executes 253 tool calls and 11 editing turns within 40 minutes for under $3, reaching average conference-poster quality in human evaluation. A system-blind human study further demonstrates that AutoDesign achieves the highest human preference among evaluated systems.

We introduce GraphicDesignBench (GDB), the first comprehensive benchmark suite designed specifically to evaluate AI models on the full breadth of professional graphic design tasks. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on natural-image understanding or generic text-to-image synthesis, GDB targets the unique challenges of professional design work: translating communicative intent into structured layouts, rendering typographically faithful text, manipulating layered compositions, producing valid vector graphics, and reasoning about animation. The suite comprises 50 tasks organized along five axes: layout, typography, infographics, template & design semantics and animation, each evaluated under both understanding and generation settings, and grounded in real-world design templates drawn from the LICA layered-composition dataset. We evaluate a set of frontier closed-source models using a standardized metric taxonomy covering spatial accuracy, perceptual quality, text fidelity, semantic alignment, and structural validity. Our results reveal that current models fall short on the core challenges of professional design: spatial reasoning over complex layouts, faithful vector code generation, fine-grained typographic perception, and temporal decomposition of animations remain largely unsolved. While high-level semantic understanding is within reach, the gap widens sharply as tasks demand precision, structure, and compositional awareness. GDB provides a rigorous, reproducible testbed for tracking progress toward AI systems that can function as capable design collaborators. The full evaluation framework is publicly available.

Recent advances in LLM agents have made them increasingly capable of designing methods for complex AI tasks. This raises two central questions about agent-designed methods relative to human-designed methods: how well they perform, and how different their algorithmic designs are. To study these questions, this paper introduces an analysis that derives task-specific algorithmic design spaces from human-designed methods, maps both human- and agent-designed methods into these spaces, and quantifies their algorithmic differences at the module level. Widely used LLM agents are evaluated on a suite of representative, open-ended AI tasks spanning multiple modalities, and the methods they design are analyzed in terms of both task performance and algorithmic differences from human-designed methods. Experimental results show that current agents can occasionally match or surpass human state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance (10/72 configurations), but such success does not generalize reliably across tasks or agents. Moreover, 96.8% of agent-designed methods fall within human-derived algorithmic design spaces, largely recombining algorithmic choices found in human-designed methods, while nearly half exactly match an existing human algorithmic design. Taken together, these findings suggest that although current agents can occasionally match or surpass human SOTA performance, their algorithmic designs remain within human-derived algorithmic design spaces, reflecting the reuse and recombination of algorithmic choices.