ImagenWorld: Stress-Testing Image Generation Models with Explainable Human Evaluation on Open-ended Real-World Tasks

TL;DR

ImagenWorld is a comprehensive benchmark with human annotations and explainable evaluation for assessing and diagnosing the performance of image generation models across diverse tasks and domains.

Contribution

Introduces ImagenWorld, a large-scale, multi-task benchmark with explainable error tagging and human annotations to evaluate image generation models comprehensively.

Findings

Models struggle more with editing than generation, especially local edits.

Artistic and photorealistic models perform better than in symbolic domains.

Closed-source models outperform open-source ones overall.

Abstract

Advances in diffusion, autoregressive, and hybrid models have enabled high-quality image synthesis for tasks such as text-to-image, editing, and reference-guided composition. Yet, existing benchmarks remain limited, either focus on isolated tasks, cover only narrow domains, or provide opaque scores without explaining failure modes. We introduce \textbf{ImagenWorld}, a benchmark of 3.6K condition sets spanning six core tasks (generation and editing, with single or multiple references) and six topical domains (artworks, photorealistic images, information graphics, textual graphics, computer graphics, and screenshots). The benchmark is supported by 20K fine-grained human annotations and an explainable evaluation schema that tags localized object-level and segment-level errors, complementing automated VLM-based metrics. Our large-scale evaluation of 14 models yields several insights: (1) models typically struggle more in editing tasks than in generation tasks, especially in local edits. (2) models excel in artistic and photorealistic settings but struggle with symbolic and text-heavy domains such as screenshots and information graphics. (3) closed-source systems lead overall, while targeted data curation (e.g., Qwen-Image) narrows the gap in text-heavy cases. (4) modern VLM-based metrics achieve Kendall accuracies up to 0.79, approximating human ranking, but fall short of fine-grained, explainable error attribution. ImagenWorld provides both a rigorous benchmark and a diagnostic tool to advance robust image generation.