Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 59 references

ReDesign: Recovering Editable Design Structures from Images via Agentic Decomposition

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that recovering an editable design file from a flat image is best modeled as an agent-driven tree expansion in which every parent-to-children split is checked locally before deeper branches are built.

desk verdict A promising agentic framework for recovering editable design structures, but the headline editability claim currently rests on an edit-replay protocol that may excuse failures, so the evaluation needs transparency before the claim is fully credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25565 v1 pith:KP2OFXOL submitted 2026-07-28 cs.CV

Jooyeol Yun , Jintae Park , Hyesu Lim , Junha Hyung , Hyungjin Chung , Jaegul Choo This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords raster-to-editablereconstructionlayerhierarchyrecoveryagenticdecompositiongracefulverificationtreeexpansioneditreplaybenchmarkdesigneditabilityvision-languageagent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

ReDesign is an attempt to turn a raster image (screenshot or export) back into a structured, editable design file. The paper's central claim is that this inverse problem is best solved not by a single layered-decomposition pass or a long serial chain of tools, but by growing a layer tree: a vision-language controller repeatedly chooses a node and a tool action, and a verifier accepts, prunes, or retries each proposed split. To support the claim, the authors introduce a benchmark of 909 real design files with 14,796 controlled edit instructions and report that their method achieves strong visual fidelity and the highest editability across layout, color, and text edits, outperforming layered-decomposition and serial-tool baselines. A reader should care because this is a concrete step toward automating a tedious designer bottleneck: recovering a file that behaves like the original, not just looks like it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the partial reconstruction tree combined with graceful verification. The tree is a growing JSON hierarchy of nodes, each carrying partial metadata (shape, color, text, font, group, z-order); expansions depend only on the parent and its history along the path from the root, so leaves can be expanded in parallel. The graceful verifier evaluates each parent-to-children proposal under two criteria—union of children covers the parent, and no child extends beyond the parent—and emits accept, prune, or retry. This converts a long, fragile decision process into a sequence of small, locally checkable steps, which is what the paper argues makes the system reliable enough

What would settle it

Run the edit-replay benchmark while recording, for every method, the fraction of edit instructions that were not executed because no predicted element matched the ground-truth target (IoU below threshold). If ReDesign's unmatched-edit rate is materially higher than the baselines', the reported editability advantage is an artifact of lenient matching; if it is comparable or lower, the claim survives. A stronger variant would force every edit to be applied to the nearest predicted element and count low-overlap matches as failures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hierarchical reconstruction with per-node verification outperforms both flat layered decomposition and serial tool-use for raster-to-editable recovery. Concretely, ReDesign grows a partial reconstruction tree from the full image root; at each expansion a controller selects a tool action such as text extraction, multi-layer decomposition, connected-component labeling, detection-and-segmentation, or vectorization; then a verifier checks whether the proposed children collectively cover the parent content and whether any child hallucinates content outside the parent, and responds with accept, prune, or retry. The authors report that this keeps errors local, prevents cas

Load-bearing premise

The editability claim rests on the assumption that skipping edits whose target element cannot be matched in a method's predicted hierarchy is a fair basis for comparison, and the paper never reports how many edits were skipped per method.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the results hold, designers could take a screenshot or flattened export and recover a working file with text, vector shapes, colors, groups, and z-order, avoiding manual redraw.
  • Step-level verification would make long reconstruction runs more dependable, since errors are repaired at the node where they occur instead of accumulating into a hard failure.
  • Parallel leaf expansion could make this class of agentic reconstruction substantially faster than serial tool-use chains, with less variance in run length.
  • The edit-replay protocol offers a quantitative definition of editability—applying the same controlled edit to ground truth and prediction and measuring agreement—that could become a standard evaluation for design-recovery systems.
  • Recovered hierarchies with correct element attribution and stacking support targeted edits such as recoloring one object or reordering layers, which are precisely the edits that flat color-and-alpha layer decompositions tend to break.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported editability gap may be partly an artifact of the matching protocol: the paper's edit replay skips an edit when no predicted element can be matched to the ground-truth target, and it does not report how many edits each method skipped. A fair head-to-head should report unmatched-edit rates, or penalize methods for skipping, before accepting the ranking.
  • The same expand-and-verify recipe generalizes in principle to other inverse-graphics tasks with hierarchical outputs, such as UI mockup recovery, CAD drawing reconstruction, or slide-deck flattening; the paper does not test these, but the dependency structure is identical.
  • Because the controller can resume expanding an already-built tree, the framework naturally supports user-in-the-loop granularity—asking for a finer split of one element while the rest stays untouched—which the paper demonstrates qualitatively but does not quantify.
  • The verifier is currently a vision-language model following a prompt, not a learned or symbolic checker; training a dedicated verifier on split-quality labels, or adding a deterministic overlap/coverage check, is a testable extension that could lower cost and improve consistency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ReDesign, an agentic framework that reconstructs an editable layer hierarchy (JSON) from a raster design image. A VLM controller grows a tree of nodes by selecting from specialized tools (OCR, layered decomposition, connected component labeling, detection/segmentation, vectorization, font prediction), and a verifier at each expansion accepts, prunes, or retries local proposals to prevent error accumulation. The authors introduce the Figma Edit Replay Benchmark (909 Figma files, 14,796 controlled edits) and report that ReDesign achieves strong reconstruction fidelity on Figma/Crello and the highest editability over layout/color/text edits compared with layered-decomposition baselines (Qwen-Image-Layered, LayerD), a ReAct-style tool agent, and VTracer. The appendix supplies prompts, tool configurations, and ablations on depth, memory, and VLM backbone.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, this is a useful contribution: a training-free hierarchical decomposition strategy with local verification, plus a large benchmark for editability that goes beyond reconstruction metrics. The method's explicit action set, tool list, and prompt templates support reproducibility, and the parallel-tree-expansion analysis (up to 7.1x speedup) is a meaningful practical insight. The strongest original component is the framing of editable reconstruction as tree expansion with per-node accept/prune/retry, which is plausibly responsible for the reported reduction in cascading errors. However, the central editability comparison is currently fragile because the edit-replay protocol may silently drop unmatched edits; the headline claim is conditional on fixing this measurement issue.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3 and Appendix D.1, Eqs. (3)–(4)] The edit-replay protocol states “If no suitable match exists, the edit is not executed” (§4.3), and the assignment in Eq. (4) pads the cost matrix with dummy entries of cost τ_d, so elements with no sufficiently cheap match are left unmatched. If unmatched ground-truth edits are excluded from the SSIM/text-recall aggregates, then a method with poor element recall is evaluated only on the subset of edits it can localize. This biases the headline “highest editability” in ReDesign’s favor and against baselines with coarser decompositions. The paper never reports how many of the 14,796 instructions were executed per method or per edit type. This must be reported; moreover, unmatched instructions should be counted as failures (or the metric should be reported both ways). Without this, the central comparison is not established.
  2. [Appendix D.1, Eqs. (2)–(4)] The matching protocol depends on thresholds τ_h and τ_d, weighting coefficients λ_l1 and λ_IoU, and merge penalties ρ_gt and ρ_pred, but no values are given. These parameters determine which predicted elements are considered matches and, combined with the unmatched-edit handling, control the editability score. The paper should report exact values and preferably a sensitivity analysis (e.g., varying τ_d over a plausible range) to show the ranking is stable. As written, the benchmark is not fully reproducible and the reported editability could reflect hidden leniency in matching rather than better structure recovery.
  3. [Tables 1–4] All quantitative tables report single point estimates with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The pipeline relies on stochastic commercial VLM APIs, and some reported gaps are small: e.g., F1 0.535 vs. 0.527 and PSNR 26.286 vs. 26.192 in Table 1, and Table 3 shows a backbone difference of the same order. The paper should report multiple runs or bootstrap confidence intervals, and state whether differences are statistically significant, before claiming “state-of-the-art” or “highest editability.”
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The sentence “Our contributions are threefold: Our contributions are threefold:” is duplicated at the end of Section 1.
  2. [Abstract / Table 2] On Crello, Qwen-Image-Layered has better PSNR (26.419 vs. 23.525) and LPIPS (0.0985 vs. 0.1249) than ReDesign. The text says ReDesign is “competitive” on Crello, which is accurate, but the abstract’s phrasing “across this benchmark and standard reconstruction metrics” could be read as claiming universal superiority; consider tightening the wording.
  3. [Appendix D.1, Eq. (4)] The notation “min_x Σ C(G_i,P_j)x_ij + τ_d n_unmatched” is ambiguous alongside the dummy-column padding in the cost matrix. Clarify whether unmatched-element costs are accounted once via dummy entries or additionally via the explicit τ_d term.
  4. [Figure 4(b)] The text-recall results are only shown graphically; report the exact numeric text-recall values and matched-edit counts in a table, since these are central to the editability comparison.
  5. [Section 4.1] For the Figma Edit Replay Benchmark, provide dataset curation/licensing details and a public release plan; the paper currently only says files come from Figma Community.
  6. [General] The term “lineal memory/history” is used repeatedly but defined only implicitly in §3.5; define it explicitly at first use to avoid confusion with “linear” memory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical agentic system using off-the-shelf tools, and its headline claims are evaluated against external ground-truth renderings rather than derived from fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

I examined the claimed derivation chain: ReDesign grows a tree via a VLM controller and fixed tool actions, with a verifier providing accept/prune/retry signals. No equation in the paper reduces a prediction to a fitted input. The system is explicitly training-free and uses publicly available tools (Table 5), so there is no parameter fitted to the benchmark and then reported as a prediction. The edit-replay benchmark is introduced by the authors, but it is grounded in 909 raw Figma files with ground-truth hierarchies and renders post-edit images as references; this is an evaluation protocol, not a circular derivation. The handling of unmatched edits in §4.3 ('If no suitable match exists, the edit is not executed') is a possible measurement-bias concern, but it does not make the editability score equivalent to the method's own output by construction. The paper's explicit limitation in §5.3 that reconstructions 'do not always align one to one with their layer splits' is an honest acknowledgment of scope, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming of a known result was found. The central claims are empirical and externally checkable against the Crello dataset and the rendered Figma ground truths; therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not rest on invented physical entities. It rests on the reliability of a proprietary VLM/tool stack, on the representativeness of the new Figma benchmark, and on the fairness of the edit-replay matching protocol. The matching thresholds are free parameters of the evaluation; their values are unreported.

free parameters (2)
  • Edit-replay matching thresholds (τ_h, τ_d, λ_l1, λ_IoU, ρ_gt, ρ_pred) = Not reported
    Defined in Eq. (2)-(4) in D.1; values are not given and directly affect which elements match and therefore the editability scores.
  • Qwen-Image-Layered layer count (layer_length) = 2-6 (adaptive)
    The controller chooses per node; the range and selection rule are set by the authors and influence hierarchy granularity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The VLM controller and verifier (Gemini-3-flash) reliably follow the prompt protocol and make correct decomposition/verification decisions.
    The whole method depends on proprietary VLM capabilities; no fine-tuning or formal guarantee is provided. See §3.3 and C.3.
  • domain assumption The component tools (OCR, Qwen-Image-Layered, SAM, inpainting, VTracer) produce outputs of sufficient quality that verification can repair them locally.
    Tool outputs are admitted to be imperfect (§1, §3.4); the method assumes errors are repairable by retry/prune rather than fatal.
  • domain assumption The edit-replay benchmark's element-matching protocol measures editability fairly.
    If unmatched edits are skipped, methods that fail to localize elements are not penalized; see §4.3.
  • domain assumption Figma community files are representative of real-world design workflows.
    Dataset selection criteria are not described; see §4.1.
  • domain assumption Greedy coarse-to-fine tree expansion can recover a valid layer hierarchy from a raster image.
    No theoretical guarantee is provided; the method relies on empirical success. See §3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ReDesign: Recovering Editable Design Structures from Images via Agentic Decomposition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KP2OFXOL

@misc{pith2026260725565,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ReDesign: Recovering Editable Design Structures from Images via Agentic Decomposition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KP2OFXOL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25565}
}
read the original abstract

Recovering an editable design file from a raster image is a common and costly bottleneck in modern design workflows, yet remains challenging since editability depends on recovering multi-modal attributes, such as typography, vector geometry, colors, grouping, and layer ordering. We present ReDesign, an agentic framework that grows an editable layer hierarchy by selecting and composing specialized tools across modalities. To keep this long decision process reliable despite imperfect tool outputs, we introduce graceful verification at each expansion, which provides local accept, prune, or retry feedback that prevents error accumulation and avoids large scale reruns. To evaluate editability at scale, we introduce the Figma Edit Replay Benchmark, consisting of 909 raw Figma files and 14,796 controlled edit instructions that replay edits on reconstructed outputs. Across this benchmark and standard reconstruction metrics, ReDesign achieves strong visual fidelity while delivering the highest editability across layout, color, and text edits, outperforming layered decomposition baselines and serial tool use pipelines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25565 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ReDesign turns raster images into editable representations that enable real￾time adjustments, such as rewriting text, color theme swaps, and repositioning layouts, directly to designs. Visit the project page for interactive demos. Abstract. Recovering an editable design file from a raster image is a common and costly bottleneck in modern design workflows, yet re￾mains challenging since editability depends on recover… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of ReDesign. A VLM controller grows an editable layer hierarchy by selecting from a fixed set of tool actions for text, objects, and layered decompo￾sition, and runs graceful verification at each parent-to-children expansion to accept valid splits, prune redundant or hallucinated children, or trigger a retry, until atomic editable elements are recovered. a discrete action space in which each action encapsul… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Figma examples and statistics compared to the Crello dataset. (b) Edit Replay Benchmark and detailed edit types. controller receives structured feedback tied to a single parent to children decision, which in turn reduces hard failures that would require large-scale reruns. 3.5 Memory Management and Repair Signals We maintain a lineal memory per node, meaning that each expansion stores only its own history along … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Edit replay SSIM for different edit types, where our method performs best across all edits. (b) Text editability measured by text recall after replaying text edits, where our method achieves the highest recall among baselines. measure the structural similarity (SSI…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of edit instructions performed on editable formats produced by each baseline. Ground-truth edit pairs are the original image (top-left) and the edited image. Target edit areas are highlighted in green. Best viewed digitally. 4.4 Reconstruction Accuracy We evalu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Decomposition accuracy comparison against baseline approaches. Previous ap￾proaches often fail to decompose multiple objects with high accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Verification cost accuracy tradeoff. Graceful verification is faster, more accurate, and has lower variance than terminal verification. (b) Speedup from parallel tree expansion. Independent node expansions enable concurrent execution, yielding up to a 7.1× speedup …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Nano Banana 2 comparison on spatial edits. For the same move and rotate instructions, Nano Banana 2 often changes unintended regions and change image sizes. 5.2 Why Editable Formats Still Matter Image editing models [1, 11] are rapidly becoming more capable and can oft…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Our method offers the flexibility to adjust editing granularity through a user￾in-the-loop revision. is agentic, users can request a finer or coarser decomposition through prompt￾ing, and the system can continue expanding the tree to match the desired edit intent, as s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: reveals a clear coarse-to-fine decomposition strategy that emerges in the controller. At shallow depths, the controller prioritizes Text Extraction, reflecting an early commitment to preserving high-value, semantically precise elements such as text. At depth 1, it fre…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of verifier decisions per decomposition action. C.2 Retry Rates during Graceful Verification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Failure cases of Qwen-Image-Layered on the Figma benchmark. C.3 Robustness to VLM Backbones We compare two VLMs as the controller and verifier, Gemini-3-flash (our de￾fault) and GPT-5 mini in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Failure cases of LayerD on the Figma benchmark. editability) while full depth gives us higher layout accuracy and thus higher editability. D Implementation Details D.1 Edit Replay Protocol We formulate the matching between GT and predicted elements as a minimum￾cost m…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Robustness to VLM backbones. Using a different VLM (GPT-5-mini) show similar results to our default setting, both achieving state-of-the-art performance in creating editable design decompositions. For each GT element gi , predicted elements with c gt i→j ≥ τh form a m…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Additional decomposition accuracy comparison against baseline approaches. Best viewed digitally [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Additional edit replay results compared against baseline approaches. Best viewed digitally [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: System prompt used for the VLM controller [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Linear history and failure history templates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: System prompt used for graceful verification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_19.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    1 kontext: Flow matching for in-context image generation and editing in latent space

    Batifol, S., Blattmann, A., Boesel, F., Consul, S., Diagne, C., Dockhorn, T., En- glish, J., English, Z., Esser, P., Kulal, S., et al.: Flux. 1 kontext: Flow matching for in-context image generation and editing in latent space. arXiv preprint (2025) 3, 4, 13

    2025

  2. [2]

    NeurIPS (2020) 3, 2

    Carlier, A., Danelljan, M., Alahi, A., Timofte, R.: Deepsvg: A hierarchical gener- ative network for vector graphics animation. NeurIPS (2020) 3, 2

    2020

  3. [3]

    Chen, H., Xu, X., Li, W., Ren, J., Ye, T., Liu, S., Chen, Y.C., Zhu, L., Wang, X.: Posta: A go-to framework for customized artistic poster generation (2025) 3

    2025

  4. [4]

    In: ICCV (2025) 2, 3, 1

    Chen, J., Wang, Z., Zhao, N., Zhang, L., Liu, D., Yang, J., Chen, Q.: Rethinking layered graphic design generation with a top-down approach. In: ICCV (2025) 2, 3, 1

    2025

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint (2025) 3

    Chen, J., Jiang, H., Wang, Y., Wu, K., Li, J., Zhang, C., Yanai, K., Chen, D., Yuan, Y.: Prismlayers: Open data for high-quality multi-layer transparent image generative models. arXiv preprint (2025) 3

    2025

  6. [6]

    Cortex, V.: Vtracer (2023),https://www.visioncortex.org/vtracer-docs3, 6, 8, 11, 1

    2023

  7. [7]

    Cui, C., Sun, T., Lin, M., Gao, T., Zhang, Y., Liu, J., Wang, X., Zhang, Z., Zhou, C., Liu, H., Zhang, Y., Lv, W., Huang, K., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Yu, D., Ma, Y.: Paddleocr 3.0 technical report (2025) 2, 5

    2025

  8. [8]

    https://www.figma.com/community 3

    Figma, I.: Figma community. https://www.figma.com/community 3

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    NeurIPS (2024) 3, 1

    Fontanella, A., Tudosiu, P.D., Yang, Y., Zhang, S., Parisot, S.: Generating com- positional scenes via text-to-image rgba instance generation. NeurIPS (2024) 3, 1

    2024

  2. [10]

    Google: Gemini 3 (2025),https://blog.google/products- and- platforms/ products/gemini/gemini-3/5

    2025

  3. [11]

    Google DeepMind: Nano banana: Ai image editing tool (2025) 3, 4, 13

    2025

  4. [12]

    In: ECCV

    Huang, R., Cai, K., Han, J., Liang, X., Pei, R., Lu, G., Xu, S., Zhang, W., Xu, H.: Layerdiff: Exploring text-guided multi-layered composable image synthesis via layer-collaborative diffusion model. In: ECCV. Springer (2024) 3, 1

    2024

  5. [13]

    In: CVPR

    Jain, A., Xie, A., Abbeel, P.: Vectorfusion: Text-to-svg by abstracting pixel-based diffusion models. In: CVPR. pp. 1911–1920 (2023) 1

    1911

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint (2025) 3, 1

    Kang, K., Sim, G., Kim, G., Kim, D., Nam, S., Cho, S.: Layeringdiff: Layered image synthesis via generation, then disassembly with generative knowledge. arXiv preprint (2025) 3, 1

    2025

  7. [15]

    In: CVPR (2019) 10 16 Yun et al

    Kirillov, A., He, K., Girshick, R., Rother, C., Dollár, P.: Panoptic segmentation. In: CVPR (2019) 10 16 Yun et al

    2019

  8. [16]

    In: ICCV (2023) 6

    Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.Y., et al.: Segment anything. In: ICCV (2023) 6

    2023

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint (2025) 12

    Li, K., Zhang, Z., Yin, H., Ye, R., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Ou, L., Zhang, D., Wu, X., Wu, J., et al.: Websailor-v2: Bridging the chasm to proprietary agents via synthetic data and scalable reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint (2025) 12

    2025

  10. [18]

    ACM TOG39(6), 193:1–193:15 (2020) 1

    Li, T.M., Lukáč, M., Gharbi, M., Ragan-Kelley, J.: Differentiable vector graphics rasterization for editing and learning. ACM TOG39(6), 193:1–193:15 (2020) 1

    2020

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint (2025) 12

    Li, Z., Guan, X., Zhang, B., Huang, S., Zhou, H., Lai, S., Yan, M., Jiang, Y., Xie, P., Huang, F., et al.: Webweaver: Structuring web-scale evidence with dynamic outlines for open-ended deep research. arXiv preprint (2025) 12

    2025

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint (2025) 2, 3, 1

    Liu, C., Song, Y., Wang, H., Shou, M.Z.: Omnipsd: Layered psd generation with diffusion transformer. arXiv preprint (2025) 2, 3, 1

    2025

  13. [21]

    ECCV (2024) 5

    Liu, S., Zeng, Z., Ren, T., Li, F., Zhang, H., Yang, J., Li, C., Yang, J., Su, H., Zhu, J., et al.: Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection. ECCV (2024) 5

    2024

  14. [22]

    In: CVPR (2020) 3

    Liu, Y.L., Lai, W.S., Yang, M.H., Chuang, Y.Y., Huang, J.B.: Learning to see through obstructions. In: CVPR (2020) 3

    2020

  15. [23]

    In: CVPR

    Ma, X., Zhou, Y., Xu, X., Sun, B., Filev, V., Orlov, N., Fu, Y., Shi, H.: Towards layer-wise image vectorization. In: CVPR. pp. 16314–16323 (2022) 1

    2022

  16. [24]

    In: ICML (2025) 1

    Nie, H., Zhang, Z., Cheng, Y., Yang, M., Shi, G., Xie, Q., Shao, J., Wu, X.: De- composition of graphic design with unified multimodal model. In: ICML (2025) 1

    2025

  17. [25]

    In: CVPR (2025) 3, 1

    Pu, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Z., Yin, R., Ye, H., Yuan, Y., Chen, D., Bao, J., Zhang, S., Wang, Y., et al.: Art: Anonymous region transformer for variable multi-layer transparent image generation. In: CVPR (2025) 3, 1

    2025

  18. [26]

    ICLR (2025) 4

    Qi, Z., Ma, M., Xu, J., Zhang, L.L., Yang, F., Yang, M.: Mutual reasoning makes smaller llms stronger problem-solvers. ICLR (2025) 4

    2025

  19. [27]

    CVPR (2025) 2, 3, 8

    Rodriguez, J.A., Agarwal, S., Laradji, I.H., Rodriguez, P., Vazquez, D., Pal, C., Pedersoli, M.: Starvector: Generating scalable vector graphics code from images. CVPR (2025) 2, 3, 8

    2025

  20. [28]

    IEEE TPAMI10(4), 579–586 (2002) 5

    Samet, H., Tamminen, M.: Efficient component labeling of images of arbitrary dimension represented by linear bintrees. IEEE TPAMI10(4), 579–586 (2002) 5

    2002

  21. [29]

    NeurIPS (2023) 4

    Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Hambro, E., Zettle- moyer, L., Cancedda, N., Scialom, T.: Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. NeurIPS (2023) 4

    2023

  22. [30]

    NeurIPS (2023) 2, 4

    Shinn,N.,Cassano,F.,Gopinath,A.,Narasimhan,K.,Yao,S.:Reflexion:Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. NeurIPS (2023) 2, 4

    2023

  23. [31]

    arXiv preprint (2025) 4

    Singh, A., Fry, A., Perelman, A., Tart, A., Ganesh, A., El-Kishky, A., McLaughlin, A., Low, A., Ostrow, A., Ananthram, A., et al.: Openai gpt-5 system card. arXiv preprint (2025) 4

    2025

  24. [32]

    In: ICCV (2025) 3, 2

    Song, Y., Chen, D., Shou, M.Z.: Layertracer: Cognitive-aligned layered svg syn- thesis via diffusion transformer. In: ICCV (2025) 3, 2

    2025

  25. [33]

    In: IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Appli- cations of Computer Vision (2022) 5, 6

    Suvorov, R., Logacheva, E., Mashikhin, A., Remizova, A., Ashukha, A., Silvestrov, A., Kong, N., Goka, H., Park, K., Lempitsky, V.: Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions. In: IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Appli- cations of Computer Vision (2022) 5, 6

    2022

  26. [34]

    In: ICCV

    Suzuki, T., Liu, K.J., Inoue, N., Yamaguchi, K.: Layerd: Decomposing raster graphic designs into layers. In: ICCV. pp. 17783–17792 (2025) 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 1 ReDesign 17

    2025

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint (2023) 4

    Team, G., Anil, R., Borgeaud, S., Alayrac, J.B., Yu, J., Soricut, R., Schalkwyk, J., Dai, A.M., Hauth, A., Millican, K., et al.: Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint (2023) 4

    2023

  28. [36]

    Team, L.: Langgraph: Building cyclic multi-agent systems.https://github.com/ langchain-ai/langgraph(2024) 7

    2024

  29. [37]

    IEEE TIP (2004) 9

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE TIP (2004) 9

    2004

  30. [38]

    arXiv preprint (2025) 3, 1

    Wang, Z., Zhao, H., Zhou, Q., Lu, X., Li, X., Song, Y.: Diffdecompose: Layer- wise decomposition of alpha-composited images via diffusion transformers. arXiv preprint (2025) 3, 1

    2025

  31. [39]

    whatfontis.com/6

    WhatFontIs: WhatFontIs – font identification API (2024),https : / / www . whatfontis.com/6

    2024

  32. [40]

    NeurIPS (2025) 12

    Wu, J., Li, B., Fang, R., Yin, W., Zhang, L., Tao, Z., Zhang, D., Xi, Z., Fu, G., Jiang, Y., et al.: Webdancer: Towards autonomous information seeking agency. NeurIPS (2025) 12

    2025

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the 63rdAnnualMeeting ofthe Association forComputational Linguistics(Volume 1: Long Papers)

    Wu, J., Yin, W., Jiang, Y., Wang, Z., Xi, Z., Fang, R., Zhang, L., He, Y., Zhou, D., Xie, P., et al.: Webwalker: Benchmarking llms in web traversal. In: Proceedings of the 63rdAnnualMeeting ofthe Association forComputational Linguistics(Volume 1: Long Papers). pp. 10290–10305 ...

    2025

  34. [42]

    In: CVPR

    Xing, X., Zhou, H., Wang, C., Zhang, J., Xu, D., Yu, Q.: Svgdreamer: Text guided svg generation with diffusion model. In: CVPR. pp. 4546–4555 (2024) 1

    2024

  35. [43]

    In: ICCV (2021) 7, 8, 11

    Yamaguchi, K.: Canvasvae: Learning to generate vector graphic documents. In: ICCV (2021) 7, 8, 11

    2021

  36. [44]

    NeurIPS (2025) 2, 3, 8

    Yang, Y., Cheng, W., Chen, S., Zeng, X., Yin, F., Zhang, J., Wang, L., Yu, G., Ma, X., Jiang, Y.G.: Omnisvg: A unified scalable vector graphics generation model. NeurIPS (2025) 2, 3, 8

    2025

  37. [45]

    In: ICLR (2023) 4, 8, 11

    Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K.R., Cao, Y.: React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In: ICLR (2023) 4, 8, 11

    2023

  38. [46]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024) 5

    Ye, M., Zhang, J., Liu, J., Liu, C., Yin, B., Liu, C., Du, B., Tao, D.: Hi-sam: Marry- ing segment anything model for hierarchical text segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024) 5

    2024

  39. [47]

    arXiv preprint (2026) 7

    Yin, P., Zhu, J., Gao, H., Zheng, C., Huang, Y., Zhou, T., Yang, R., Liu, W., Chen, W., Guo, C., et al.: vllm-omni: Fully disaggregated serving for any-to-any multimodal models. arXiv preprint (2026) 7

    2026

  40. [48]

    arXiv preprint (2025) 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 1, 7

    Yin, S., Zhang, Z., Tang, Z., Gao, K., Xu, X., Yan, K., Li, J., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Shum, H.Y., et al.: Qwen-image-layered: Towards inherent editability via layer decomposition. arXiv preprint (2025) 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 1, 7

    2025

  41. [49]

    ACM TOG (2024) 3, 1

    Zhang, L., Agrawala, M.: Transparent image layer diffusion using latent trans- parency. ACM TOG (2024) 3, 1

    2024

  42. [50]

    In: CVPR (2018) 10

    Zhang, R., Isola, P., Efros, A.A., Shechtman, E., Wang, O.: The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In: CVPR (2018) 10

    2018

  43. [51]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09781 (2023) 3, 1

    Zhang, X., Zhao, W., Lu, X., Chien, J.: Text2layer: Layered image generation using latent diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09781 (2023) 3, 1

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    arXiv preprint (2025) 3

    Zhang, Z., Cheng, Y., Hong, D., Yang, M., Shi, G., Ma, L., Zhang, H., Shao, J., Wu, X.: Creatiposter: Towards editable and controllable multi-layer graphic design generation. arXiv preprint (2025) 3

    2025

  45. [53]

    Zhao, J., Zhou, S., Wang, Z., Yang, P., Loy, C.C.: Objectclear: Complete object removal via object-effect attention. In: CVPR (2026) 6 ReDesign 1 Appendix A Broader Impact and Ethical Considerations Recovering editable design structure from raster images can improve creative w...

    2026

  46. [54]

    qwen_layered — I/O: qwen_layered(image, layers=N) → List[layers] — Purpose: Multi-layer decomposition (MM-DiT)

  47. [55]

    split_cca — I/O: split_cca(image) → List[component_masks] — Purpose: Fast pixel-based Connected Component Analysis

  48. [56]

    tool I/O signatures omitted for brevity) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Available Actions ═════════════════════════════════════

    Gdino / sam2 / ocr / hisam / lama / objectclear / vtracer — (... tool I/O signatures omitted for brevity) ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Available Actions ═════════════════════════════════════

  49. [57]

    qwen_image_layered

    Fork_Layers — Use when multiple objects are intertwined. — Tool Sequence: ["qwen_image_layered"] — Hyperparameter ` layer_length (range: 2-6)

  50. [58]

    ocr", "hisam

    Split_Text — When Text is visible, utilize Split_Text. — Tool Sequence: ["ocr", "hisam", "lama"]

  51. [59]

    image_context

    Split_DetSeg / CCL / Font Prediction / Vectorization — (... Actions explanation omitted for brevity) ═════════════════════════════════════ ═════════════════════════════════════ Output Format ═════════════════════════════════════ { "image_context": "Description of current layer...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.