This evaluation probes a diffusion model's ability to generate pixel-level sketches that align with detailed text prompts while maintaining stylistic abstraction and human-like drawing characteristics. It measures both perceptual image quality and fine-grained text-to-image semantic alignment across multiple complementary metrics. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SketchDUO, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports TIFAScore.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill sketchduo-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Sketchduo Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-sketchduo-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: sketchduo-eval
description: This evaluation probes a diffusion model's ability to generate pixel-level sketches that align with detailed text prompts while maintaining stylistic abstraction and human-like drawing characteristics. It measures both perceptual image quality and fine-grained text-to-image semantic alignment across multiple complementary metrics. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SketchDUO, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports TIFAScore.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2510.20093
bibtex_key: park2025stablesketcher
confidence: high
---
# sketchduo-eval
> StableSketcher: Enhancing Diffusion Model for Pixel-based Sketch Generation via Visual Question Answering Feedback — Park et al. (2025) (arXiv:2510.20093, 2025)
## What this evaluates
This evaluation probes a diffusion model's ability to generate pixel-level sketches that align with detailed text prompts while maintaining stylistic abstraction and human-like drawing characteristics. It measures both perceptual image quality and fine-grained text-to-image semantic alignment across multiple complementary metrics.
## Datasets
- **SketchDUO** — total 3000; splits: train (1800), test (1200)
## Metrics
- `FID` — range: [0, inf)
- Fréchet Inception Distance measures the Wasserstein-2 distance between the distributions of real and generated sketch images in the Inception feature space. Lower values indicate better image quality and distribution matching.
- `LPIPS` — range: [0, 1]
- Learned Perceptual Image Patch Similarity computes perceptual distance using deep network features. Lower values indicate higher perceptual similarity to reference sketches.
- `CLIPScore` — range: [0, 1]
- Cosine similarity between image and text embeddings from the CLIP model. Higher values indicate stronger text-image alignment.
- `BERTScore` — range: [0, 1]
- Precision, recall, and F1 computed over token-level embeddings from BERT, matching predictions to gold text via cosine similarity. Higher values indicate better semantic alignment.
- `TIFAScore` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Text-Image Fine-grained Alignment Score evaluates element-level fidelity by parsing prompts into specific visual elements and measuring their presence/accuracy in generated images. Higher values indicate better prompt fidelity.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Text prompts describing sketch content, style, and background conditions (e.g., 'A black line drawing of a teddy bear with a friendly smile on a white background.').
**Output**: Pixel-based sketch images (binary/grayscale line drawings) generated by the diffusion model.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def evaluate_sketches(predictions, gold_prompts, real_sketches):
results = {}
results['FID'] = frechet_inception_distance(real_sketches, predictions)
results['LPIPS'] = perceptual_l2_similarity(real_sketches, predictions)
results['CLIPScore'] = clip_similarity(predictions, gold_prompts)
results['BERTScore'] = bert_semantic_match(predictions, gold_prompts)
results['TIFAScore'] = tifa_element_fidelity(predictions, gold_prompts)
return results
```
## Common pitfalls
- Metric directionality confusion: FID and LPIPS are lower-is-better, whereas CLIPScore, BERTScore, and TIFAScore are higher-is-better.
- Over-reliance on BERTScore: BERTScore captures global semantic similarity but misses fine-grained instance details; TIFAScore is required for accurate prompt fidelity assessment in sketch generation.
- User study ranking interpretation: Lower mean rank indicates stronger preference, which contradicts standard accuracy benchmarks and can cause misinterpretation if not explicitly noted.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> To evaluate the quality of the generated images, we adopt five metrics that encompass both image quality and text-image alignment. For image quality assessment, we employ Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) and LPIPS. For text-image alignment, we leverage CLIPScore, BERTScore, and TIFAScore.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{park2025stablesketcher,
title={StableSketcher: Enhancing Diffusion Model for Pixel-based Sketch Generation via Visual Question Answering Feedback},
author={Park et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2510.20093}
}
```
- arXiv: 2510.20093
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!