Visual autoregressive models produce convincing images but can misassign attributes and spatial relations. Searching multiple generation paths can improve composition, yet completing every candidate is costly. We introduce ATLAS, a training-free framework that uses the frozen generator's internal attention to guide search before final images are available. Within-prompt diagnostics identify attention-derived scores that predict final compositional preferences on Infinity, with category-dependent transfer to Switti. ATLAS uses these on-the-fly signals to progressively concentrate computation on promising trajectories. It maintains multiple coarse alternatives, prunes candidates without decoding at intermediate scales, and reserves image-space evaluation for a final choice among partial trajectories. ATLAS scales effectively on both backbones, achieving higher mean scores on the evaluated T2I-CompBench and GenEval categories as more computation is devoted to search. At the largest tested budget, the targeted T2I-CompBench mean improves by over 10% relative to each backbone. Separate profiles show over 50% less generation time than completing and evaluating all candidates at equal initial counts, alongside lower peak allocated GPU memory. Relative time savings are larger at the higher tested candidate count. Together, these results support scalable compositional search: additional sampling expands exploration, while attention-guided selection limits continuation cost without parameter updates or gradient-based optimization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Final-image similarity after replacing A with B. A horizontal-axis value s means scale s has been generated under A before replacement; B is used from scale s+1 onward (Equation 3 ). Blue/pink curves show image-embedding cosine similarity to full A/B references generated with the same seed. Dotted lines show reference similarity. Each point covers ten prompt pairs. Appendix B details the scoring protocol and the scope of these descriptive summaries.
Figure 2: Two examples each of color, object-identity, and texture/material switches. Full A/B references bracket completed switched continuations. A column labeled s4, for example, uses A through scale 4 and B from scale 5 onward. Columns run from replacement after scale 4 to replacement after scale 0; earlier replacement increasingly reflects B.
Category
Infinity calibration
Infinity held-out
Switti held-out
2D
68.6
72.9
56.7
Color
63.6
62.7
63.2
Shape
57.9
54.0
55.0
Texture
65.6
60.3
62.2
3D
65.7
58.4
54.7
Table 1: Pairwise agreement (%) over indices 2–6. Both held-out sets use frozen Infinity choices. Chance is 50%; indices need not denote matching resolutions. Intervals and prompt counts: Table 9 .
Figure 3: Comparing layers 1–8, 9–16, and all 32 on Infinity calibration prompts. Left: pairwise agreement, with the axis starting at 40%; right: negative within-prompt Spearman correlation. Higher bars indicate better ranking. Dashed lines mark 50% chance agreement and zero correlation. Appendix A defines aggregation across losses and scales.
Infinity-2B
Switti
Category
Frozen block
1–8
9–16
All
1–8
9–16
All
2D
9–16
64.1
72.9
69.6
47.9
56.7
56.3
Color
1–8
62.7
56.5
53.1
63.2
57.6
60.4
Shape
1–8
54.0
45.1
49.1
55.0
43.1
44.7
Texture
1–8
60.3
60.9
61.8
62.2
57.3
61.8
3D
1–8
58.3
49.1
56.3
54.5
53.3
52.5
Table 2: Held-out agreement (%) over 2–6. Top: frozen losses, equally averaged over scales; blue marks selected blocks, All means 32/30 layers. Switti 3D coverage varies. Bottom: Infinity pooled accuracy for Top-1 and per-loss metric averages for Top-3/Top-5. Aggregations differ; Top-5 is exploratory.
Figure 4: Exploratory Infinity held-out layer comparison using Figure 3 ’s aggregation. Agreement starts at 40%; correlation is −ρ . Reference lines mark 50% and zero. These post-lock aggregates do not redefine frozen choices.
Figure 5: BoN and ATLAS at the same initial count. BoN completes all eight paths before ImageReward selection. ATLAS retains six, four, then two using losses computed from text–visual cross-attention; ImageReward selects one partial decode for completion. Crossed nodes stop. For larger ATLAS budgets, pre-reward counts scale by m . Icons and spacing are schematic, not image results or measured runtime.
Category
Attention loss
Infinity layers
2D
Separation (Appendix C )
9–16
Color
SynGen ( Rassin et al., 2023 )
1–8
Shape
Peak (Appendix C )
1–8
Texture
CONFORM ( Meral et al., 2024 )
1–8
3D
Footprint (Appendix C )
1–8
Table 3: Category-specific attention losses and selected transformer layers used by ATLAS on Infinity-2B. Layer indices are one-based.
Model / setting
Color
Texture
Shape
2D
3D
Cmplx
Num.
Non-S.
Avg. 6
Overall
SDXL
0.593
0.519
0.466
0.215
0.341
0.319
0.504
0.311
0.4088
0.4085
PixArt- α
0.407
0.444
0.367
0.202
0.350
0.324
0.506
0.308
0.3490
0.3635
Flux-Dev
0.746
0.644
0.482
0.273
0.393
0.363
0.613
0.309
0.4835
0.4779
Flux-Schnell
0.725
0.683
0.559
0.271
0.373
0.364
0.604
0.312
0.4958
0.4864
Switti
0.732
0.620
0.500
0.208
0.378
0.366
0.555
0.315
0.4673
0.4593
+ ATLAS ( N=1 , All)
0.773
0.688
0.518
0.219
0.363
0.389
0.555
0.315
0.4916
0.4774
Table 4: T2I-CompBench scores. Avg. 6 covers binding, spatial relations, and complex composition; Overall is the mean across all eight categories. Gray columns are untargeted and unchanged for ATLAS. ATLAS, TTS-VAR, and Switti BoN average four seeds; Infinity BoN uses one run. ATLAS and TTS-VAR start 8N paths; BoN completes n=8 candidates. Diffusion references: Shahabadi et al. (2025) . Blue: ATLAS. Bold/underline: highest/second-highest per column across all models, including displayed ties.
Pruning rule
Budget
Color
Texture
Shape
2D
3D
Cmplx
Avg. 6
Random
N=1
0.7510
0.6410
0.4820
0.2450
0.4080
0.3890
0.4860
Attention (All)
N=1
0.7630
0.6748
0.4985
0.2440
0.4107
0.3965
0.4979
Attention (Selected)
N=1
0.7653
0.6728
0.5023
0.2543
0.4093
0.3988
0.5004
Random
N=2
0.7530
0.6430
0.4880
0.2510
0.4120
0.3920
0.4898
Attention (All)
N=2
0.7810
0.6873
0.5235
0.2578
0.4140
0.4010
0.5108
Attention (Selected)
N=2
0.7850
0.6945
0.5233
0.2620
0.4208
0.4028
0.5147
Table 5: Infinity pruning and layer ablations with ImageReward final selection. Random: one seed; attention: four-seed means. Avg. 6 : displayed categories, excluding inactive Numeracy and Non-Spatial. Blue: selected-layer ATLAS. Bold/underline: highest/second-highest within each budget.
Method
# Params
GenEval ↑
Color
Color attr.
Position
Avg.
Diffusion models
SDXL
3.5B
0.862
0.210
0.105
0.392
PixArt- α
0.6B
0.801
0.093
0.068
0.321
Flux-Dev
12B
0.766
0.470
0.185
0.474
Flux-Schnell
12B
0.785
0.505
0.263
0.518
Table 6: Targeted GenEval scores. Published diffusion and Infinity references: Shahabadi et al. (2025) ; ATLAS averages four seeds. Switti’s parameter count: Voronov et al. (2024) . Blue: ATLAS. Bold/underline: highest/second-highest per score column across all models, including displayed ties.
Backbone
Method ( n )
Outputs
Time (s)
Load alloc. (MB)
Peak alloc. (MiB)
Peak reserv. (MiB)
Switti
Base (1)
30
1.34
6,720
8,732
15,620
BoN (8)
30
5.24
8,474
13,189
20,472
ATLAS (8)
30
2.04
8,474
12,485
18,200
BoN (16)
30
9.54
8,474
14,434
22,158
ATLAS (16)
30
2.57
8,474
12,537
18,200
Infinity-2B
Base (1)
30
2.63
7,342
11,520
22,178
Table 7: A100 40 GB profiles at initial count n : 30 outputs per setting and mean s/output. Peak memory is rounded MiB; load allocation retains the source-reported MB label (Appendix H ). Blue: ATLAS. Bold/underline: lowest/second-lowest per metric within each backbone and initial count, excluding Base and including ties.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
M
U
Selection
95% CI
Random
pHolm
2D
365
175
61.7
[51.0, 72.1]
38.1
0.0015
Color
405
205
47.8
[38.2, 57.6]
41.5
0.0308
Shape
350
190
38.4
[27.8, 49.7]
39.5
0.604
Texture
340
185
51.9
[40.6, 62.7]
39.6
0.167
3D
149
71
45.1
[25.0, 65.8]
37.6
0.604
Appendix
Table 8: Infinity held-out coverage and secondary selection results for the frozen single loss over indices 2–6. M counts evaluable pair–scale decisions; U counts eligible prompt–scale selections. These repeated decisions are not independent samples. Selection and random baseline are percentages; selection intervals resample prompts. The adjusted p -value tests pairwise agreement within the original 15-endpoint family.
Category
Infinity calibration
Infinity held-out
Switti held-out
2D
[62.5, 74.7] n=80
[64.5, 80.5] n=35
[48.7, 64.5] n=45
Color
[57.3, 69.4] n=87
[54.4, 70.5] n=42
[56.1, 70.0] n=46
Shape
[51.7, 64.2] n=75
[44.6, 62.8] n=38
[44.7, 65.7] n=39
Texture
[58.2, 72.8] n=82
[51.2, 69.2] n=37
[53.6, 70.2] n=44
3D
[53.5, 76.8] n=39
[43.9, 72.5] n=23
[41.8, 66.9] n=20
Appendix
Table 9: 95% prompt-bootstrap intervals for pairwise agreement (%) and contributing prompt counts over indices 2–6. Held-out choices are frozen from Infinity calibration.
Scale
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement
55.7
63.7
62.0
63.7
63.1
62.3
57.9
95% CI
[49.0, 62.3]
[57.1, 70.2]
[56.1, 67.7]
[57.7, 69.5]
[57.0, 69.1]
[56.1, 68.3]
[51.1, 64.4]
Pairs
318
324
323
322
322
320
319
Appendix
Table 10: Infinity held-out scale-wise pairwise agreement of frozen scores. Scale indices are zero-based; agreement and 95% prompt-bootstrap intervals are percentages. Pair counts sum evaluable pairs across categories; multiple pairs can belong to one prompt. Chance agreement is 50%.
Category
Unanimous
Winner + tie
All tie
Conflict
2D
47
26
45
32
Color
44
37
51
18
Shape
41
29
54
26
Texture
32
36
49
33
3D
52
25
28
45
Appendix
Table 11: Infinity held-out VLM consensus counts. Each row totals 150 unordered pairs. Subsequent effective loss ties further reduce the coverage of a given score.
Backbone / setting
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Avg. 6± SD
Overall ± SD
Infinity-2B / TTS-VAR N=1
0.5150
0.5075
0.5035
0.5058
0.5080±0.0050
0.4936±0.0042
Infinity-2B / TTS-VAR N=2
0.5130
0.5177
0.5170
0.5160
0.5159±0.0021
0.5024±0.0014
Infinity-2B / ATLAS N=1
0.5010
0.4963
0.5037
0.5007
0.5004±0.0030
0.4856±0.0023
Infinity-2B / ATLAS N=2
0.5177
0.5138
0.5127
0.5147
0.5147±0.0021
0.4963±0.0016
Infinity-2B / ATLAS N=8
0.5292
0.5273
0.5340
0.5307
0.5303±0.0028
0.5080±0.0021
Switti / ATLAS N=1
0.4912
0.4927
0.4915
0.4910
0.4916±0.0008
0.4774±0.0006
Appendix
Table 12: T2I-CompBench Avg. 6 for four repetitions, with means and sample standard deviations for Avg. 6 and Overall (the eight-category mean). ATLAS N=8 begins with 64 trajectories, while BoN n=8 completes eight.
Visual autoregressive (VAR) models offer fast, high-quality text-to-image generation but still fail at attribute binding and spatial relations. Existing VAR test-time methods search sampled trajectories or apply generic logit guidance but do not directly optimize compositional constraints; gradient-based diffusion methods do not transfer to stateful, discrete, multi-resolution VAR sampling. We introduce VISTA (Visual Autoregressive Semantic Test-time Alignment), the first gradient-based test-time framework for compositional alignment in next-scale autoregressive image generation. Built on Infinity, VISTA optimizes intermediate representations through the frozen transformer without parameter updates or training. It stabilizes optimization across scales and exposes a common interface into which any differentiable constraint on cross-attention can be plugged. Across two benchmarks and model scales, VISTA improves every targeted category, raising the mean by nearly 20% on a 2B backbone and almost 6% on an 8B backbone, especially on spatial relations. In human evaluation, VISTA wins 83% of decisive compositionality comparisons by plurality vote, with no significant preference in perceived quality; independently, ImageReward scores its outputs 20% higher. VISTA enables the 2B model to surpass a backbone four times its size, showing much of the compositional gap is recoverable at test time.
Text-to-image models have made remarkable progress in visual fidelity and instruction following, yet complex compositional generation remains challenging. Existing agentic approaches address this limitation through iterative generation and editing, adapting their actions based on interaction history. However, they typically fix the continuation state (i.e., the image from which refinement proceeds) to the latest image. Since iterative editing is not necessarily monotonic, the agent may continue refining from the latest image even when it has already degraded. In this work, we introduce GenRevisit, an agentic framework that extends action selection to joint continuation-state and action selection. The agent can not only use interaction history to adjust editing instructions but also select an image candidate to edit, jointly deciding where to continue from and how to refine. We train GenRevisit with SFT followed by agentic reinforcement learning. To address the coarse credit assignment of final outcome reward in GRPO, which assigns the same trajectory-level advantage to all actions, we further propose Normalized Action Credit Assignment (NACA) to redistribute positive advantage according to each action's contribution to reducing the remaining objective. On GenEval2, GenRevisit achieves GM scores of 84.3 and 74.4 with Qwen-Image-2512 and Z-Image-Turbo, surpassing the strongest baselines using the same generators by 12.7 and 10.9 points respectively. GenRevisit achieves state-of-the-art performance on GenEval, GenEval++, and GenEval2 among baselines.
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.