T2I-CompBench: Compositional Text-to-Image Benchmark
T2I-CompBench is a 6,000-prompt benchmark for compositional text-to-image generation (Huang et al., NeurIPS 2023). This Potato config reproduces its human eval: Likert ratings, challenge-type tagging, and pairwise comparison.
About this dataset
T2I-CompBench is a benchmark for open-world compositional text-to-image generation, built by Kaiyi Huang, Kaiyue Sun, Enze Xie, Zhenguo Li, and Xihui Liu (University of Hong Kong and Huawei Noah's Ark Lab) and published at NeurIPS 2023.
The benchmark contains 6,000 compositional text prompts organized into 3 categories and 6 sub-categories: attribute binding (color, shape, texture), object relationships (spatial, non-spatial), and complex compositions. Each sub-category holds 1,000 prompts, split into 700 for training and 300 for testing.
Each sub-category uses a tailored automatic metric: Disentangled BLIP-VQA scores attribute binding, a UniDet-based metric scores spatial relationships, CLIPScore handles non-spatial relationships, and a 3-in-1 metric (averaging CLIPScore, Disentangled BLIP-VQA, and UniDet) scores complex compositions. These automatic scores are validated against human judgments of text-image alignment.
The Potato config below reproduces the human evaluation side of this benchmark: annotators rate generated-image quality on a Likert scale, classify which compositional challenge type a prompt targets, and compare pairs of generated images through pairwise preference.
- Total prompts
- 6,000
- Categories
- 3 (attribute binding, object relationships, complex compositions)
- Sub-categories
- 6 (color, shape, texture, spatial, non-spatial, complex)
- Prompts per sub-category
- 1,000 (700 train / 300 test)
- Evaluation metrics
- BLIP-VQA, UniDet, CLIPScore, 3-in-1
- Venue
- NeurIPS 2023
Configuration Fileconfig.yaml
This Potato config reproduces the annotation task. Save it as config.yaml and run potato start config.yaml to try it.
# T2I-CompBench Text-to-Image Evaluation
# Based on Huang et al., NeurIPS 2023
# Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06350
# Dataset: https://github.com/Karine-Huang/T2I-CompBench
#
# Evaluation of compositional text-to-image generation. Annotators assess
# how well generated images match text prompts across the benchmark's
# compositional dimensions: attribute binding (color, shape, texture),
# spatial relationships, non-spatial relationships, and complex compositions.
#
# Quality Rating (Likert 1-5):
# - 1 (Very Poor): Image does not match the prompt at all
# - 3 (Average): Some elements match but with notable errors
# - 5 (Perfect): Image perfectly matches all aspects of the prompt
#
# Compositional Challenge Types (T2I-CompBench, NeurIPS 2023):
# - Attribute binding: Correct binding of color, shape, texture to objects
# - Spatial: Correct spatial relationships between objects
# - Non-spatial: Non-spatial relationships such as actions or interactions
# - Complex: Multiple compositional challenges combined
# (Counting/numeracy was added only in the later T2I-CompBench++.)
#
# Annotation Guidelines:
# 1. Read the text prompt carefully
# 2. Examine both generated images
# 3. Rate the overall quality of prompt-image alignment
# 4. Classify the type of compositional challenge
# 5. Compare the two images in a pairwise preference judgment
annotation_task_name: "T2I-CompBench Text-to-Image Evaluation"
task_dir: "."
data_files:
- sample-data.json
item_properties:
id_key: "id"
text_key: "text"
output_annotation_dir: "annotation_output/"
output_annotation_format: "json"
port: 8000
server_name: localhost
annotation_schemes:
# Step 1: Quality rating
- annotation_type: likert
name: quality_rating
description: "How well do the generated images match the text prompt?"
min_label: "Very Poor"
max_label: "Perfect"
size: 5
# Step 2: Challenge type classification
- annotation_type: radio
name: challenge_type
description: "What type of compositional challenge does this prompt test?"
labels:
- "Attribute binding"
- "Spatial"
- "Non-spatial"
- "Complex"
keyboard_shortcuts:
"Attribute binding": "1"
"Spatial": "2"
"Non-spatial": "3"
"Complex": "4"
tooltips:
"Attribute binding": "Tests correct binding of color, shape, or texture to objects"
"Spatial": "Tests correct spatial relationships (above, below, next to, etc.)"
"Non-spatial": "Tests non-spatial relationships such as actions or interactions"
"Complex": "Tests multiple compositional challenges combined"
# Step 3: Pairwise image comparison
- annotation_type: pairwise
name: image_preference
description: "Which image better matches the text prompt?"
mode: "binary"
labels:
- "Image A Better"
- "Image B Better"
- "Equal"
keyboard_shortcuts:
"Image A Better": "a"
"Image B Better": "b"
"Equal": "e"
tooltips:
"Image A Better": "Image A more accurately represents the text prompt"
"Image B Better": "Image B more accurately represents the text prompt"
"Equal": "Both images are equally accurate (or equally inaccurate)"
annotation_instructions: |
You will evaluate text-to-image generation quality from the T2I-CompBench benchmark.
For each item:
1. Read the text prompt carefully - note all objects, attributes, relationships, and actions described.
2. Examine both Image A and Image B.
3. Rate the overall quality of prompt-image alignment on a 1-5 scale.
4. Classify what type of compositional challenge the prompt tests.
5. Compare the two images and select which better matches the prompt.
Key Evaluation Criteria:
- Are all mentioned objects present?
- Are attributes (colors, shapes) correctly assigned to the right objects?
- Are spatial relationships correct?
- Are the correct number of objects shown?
- Are actions depicted accurately?
html_layout: |
<div style="padding: 15px; max-width: 900px; margin: auto;">
<div style="background: #f0f9ff; border: 1px solid #bae6fd; border-radius: 8px; padding: 16px; margin-bottom: 16px;">
<strong style="color: #0369a1;">Text Prompt:</strong>
<p style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.7; margin: 8px 0 0 0;">{{text}}</p>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; gap: 16px;">
<div style="flex: 1; text-align: center;">
<h4 style="color: #1976d2;">Image A</h4>
<img src="{{image_a_url}}" style="max-width: 100%; max-height: 400px; border: 2px solid #1976d2; border-radius: 8px;" />
</div>
<div style="flex: 1; text-align: center;">
<h4 style="color: #c62828;">Image B</h4>
<img src="{{image_b_url}}" style="max-width: 100%; max-height: 400px; border: 2px solid #c62828; border-radius: 8px;" />
</div>
</div>
</div>
allow_all_users: true
instances_per_annotator: 50
annotation_per_instance: 3
allow_skip: true
skip_reason_required: false
Sample Datasample-data.json
[
{
"id": "t2i_001",
"text": "A red apple on a blue plate next to a green cup",
"image_a_url": "https://example.com/t2i/image_001a.jpg",
"image_b_url": "https://example.com/t2i/image_001b.jpg"
},
{
"id": "t2i_002",
"text": "Three cats sitting on a wooden fence at sunset",
"image_a_url": "https://example.com/t2i/image_002a.jpg",
"image_b_url": "https://example.com/t2i/image_002b.jpg"
}
]
// ... and 8 more itemsGet This Design
Clone or download from the repository
Quick start:
git clone https://github.com/davidjurgens/potato-showcase.git cd potato-showcase/image/generation-eval/t2i-compbench potato start config.yaml
Dataset & paper
Huang et al., NeurIPS 2023
Citation (BibTeX)
@inproceedings{huang2023t2icompbench,
title = "{T2I}-{C}omp{B}ench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Open-world Compositional Text-to-Image Generation",
author = "Huang, Kaiyi and Sun, Kaiyue and Xie, Enze and Li, Zhenguo and Liu, Xihui",
booktitle = "Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems",
year = "2023",
url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06350"
}Details
Annotation Types
Domain
Use Cases
Tags
Found an issue or want to improve this design?
Open an IssueRelated Designs
Image Captioning Evaluation
Rate AI-generated image captions for accuracy, level of detail, and hallucination.
Image Classification
Multi-class image classification with thumbnail preview and zoom controls.
MT-Bench Judge Consistency Evaluation
Multi-turn conversation evaluation for LLM judge consistency, based on MT-Bench (Zheng et al., NeurIPS 2023). Annotators compare two assistant responses in a pairwise setting, rate overall quality on a 1-10 Likert scale, and classify the conversation category.