Abstract
Reasoning-augmented text-to-image models such as GoT-R1 emit an explicit textual plan - object names, attributes, and bounding boxes - before generating image tokens. When such a model fails a compositional prompt, is the plan wrong, or is the plan right and the decoder unfaithful? Because the plan is machine-readable it can be edited before decoding, which makes the two separable. We first validate the ruler. Swapping the two bounding boxes inside the model's own chain demonstrably flips the generated layout: detector-based accuracy falls 0.75 -> 0.48 (p<1e-3), while a widely used VQA-based spatial metric rises. A five-rater human study agrees with the detector on 81% of items and with the VQA judge on 57%. All spatial results therefore use geometric scoring. Under sound measurement the decoder is a faithful executor: 94% of generated layouts realize the planned relation, and object-box binding survives reordering of the plan's object segments. The planner is the bottleneck. It writes wrong relations for phrasing-dependent reasons - 98% accuracy on "left" against 54% on "right" for semantically identical layouts, a raster-order bias we isolate with a mention-order control - and cluttered geometry that the decoder faithfully reproduces. Editing the plan therefore fixes the image without retraining: symbolic verification with resampling gives +5.0 points (p<1e-3), minimal in-place repair +6.0 (p=.02), rewriting only box geometry +10.7 (p<1e-4), and replacing the plan outright +13.3 (p=1e-4). Gains are indifferent to the plan's prose style and to its likelihood under the planner, but not to its geometry. Modular planner-decoder designs are therefore viable, provided the plan is internally consistent: box-text contradictions induce object duplication and identity fusion. We release the plan-fidelity evaluation protocol, all plans, and 12k generated images.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.21713
