Evaluates AI systems' ability to perceive, reason about, and generate professional graphic design artifacts across layout, typography, vector graphics, template semantics, and animation. It probes multi-constraint satisfaction through design-native metrics measuring spatial accuracy, perceptual quality, and semantic alignment. Use when the user wants to benchmark on LICA layered-composition dataset, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports mIoU.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Graphic Design Bench Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-graphic-design-bench-eval)
---
name: graphic-design-bench-eval
description: Evaluates AI systems' ability to perceive, reason about, and generate professional graphic design artifacts across layout, typography, vector graphics, template semantics, and animation. It probes multi-constraint satisfaction through design-native metrics measuring spatial accuracy, perceptual quality, and semantic alignment. Use when the user wants to benchmark on LICA layered-composition dataset, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports mIoU.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2604.04192
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# graphic-design-bench-eval
> Graphic-Design-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating AI on Graphic Design Tasks — Deganutti et al. (2026) (arXiv:2604.04192, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates AI systems' ability to perceive, reason about, and generate professional graphic design artifacts across layout, typography, vector graphics, template semantics, and animation. It probes multi-constraint satisfaction through design-native metrics measuring spatial accuracy, perceptual quality, and semantic alignment.
## Datasets
- **LICA layered-composition dataset** — total ?; splits: test (-1); repo https://github.com/purvanshi-lica/lica-bench
## Metrics
- `mIoU` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Mean Intersection over Union; measures average overlap between predicted and ground-truth bounding boxes.
- `CLIP Score` — range: [0, 1]
- Cosine similarity between image and text embeddings, measuring semantic alignment.
- `LPIPS` — range: [0, 1]
- Learned perceptual distance between two images using deep features; lower values indicate greater perceptual similarity.
- `SSIM` — range: [0, 1]
- Structural similarity index based on luminance, contrast, and structure; higher is better.
- `FID` — range: [0, 1]
- Fréchet Inception Distance; measures distributional distance between generated and reference image sets in Inception feature space.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Varies by task: text-only (layout JSON or text metadata), image-only (rendered PNG), or both. For video tasks, native video or uniformly sampled keyframes. All evaluated with greedy decoding (temperature=0) using fixed prompt templates.
**Output**: Task-dependent: natural language/text responses for understanding/classification, rendered images, SVG code, Lottie JSON, or video files for generation tasks.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def score(predictions, gold):
# Spatial accuracy (mIoU)
ious = [intersection_over_union(pred_box, gold_box) for pred_box, gold_box in zip(predictions, gold)]
mIoU = sum(ious) / len(ious)
# Semantic alignment (CLIP Score)
clip_scores = [cosine_similarity(clip_encode(pred), clip_encode(gold)) for pred, gold in zip(predictions, gold)]
# Perceptual quality (LPIPS)
lpips_scores = [lpips_metric(pred_img, gold_img) for pred_img, gold_img in zip(predictions, gold)]
return {"mIoU": mIoU, "CLIP_Score": mean(clip_scores), "LPIPS": mean(lpips_scores)}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Modality mismatch: Not all models support native video or specific input types; keyframe extraction is used as a fallback, which may skew temporal reasoning results.
- Sample size disparity: Understanding tasks use ~1,000-2,500 samples, while generation tasks are limited to ~100 due to API costs, affecting statistical power.
- Expert-defined solvability thresholds: Performance is categorized as 'Mostly Solved' (>95%), 'Partially Solved' (80-95%), or 'Unsolved' (<80%) based on design expert consultation, not standard academic baselines.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Throughout the paper we assign each task one of three solvability labels. Mostly Solved: best-model performance exceeds 95% (or an equivalent metric-specific threshold), with limited room for improvement at the current evaluation granularity. Partially Solved: best-model performance falls between 80–95%... mIoU (mean Intersection over Union) measures average overlap between predicted and ground-truth bounding boxes. CLIP Score computes cosine similarity between image and text embeddings. LPIPS computes learned perceptual distance between two images using deep features; lower values indicate greater perceptual similarity.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{deganutti2026graphicdesignbench,
title={Graphic-Design-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating AI on Graphic Design Tasks},
author={Deganutti et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2604.04192}
}
```
- arXiv: 2604.04192