From 07c558ce832b6685ff4fcf48f2d8390a76e45cfb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: DaichiHaraguchi <56257628+DaichiHaraguchi@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 17:45:00 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Update index.md

---
 docs/index.md | 8 --------
 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/docs/index.md b/docs/index.md
index 0d262fa..7751625 100644
--- a/docs/index.md
+++ b/docs/index.md
@@ -13,15 +13,7 @@ Daichi Haraguchi<sup>1</sup>, Naoto Inoue<sup>1</sup>, Wataru Shimoda<sup>1</sup
 ### Abstruct
 Recent advancements in foundation models show promising capability in graphic design generation. Several studies have started employing Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) to evaluate graphic designs, assuming that LMMs can properly assess their quality, but it is unclear if the evaluation is reliable. One way to evaluate the quality of graphic design is to assess whether the design adheres to fundamental graphic design principles, which are the designer's common practice. In this paper, we compare the behavior of GPT-based evaluation and heuristic evaluation based on design principles using human annotations collected from 60 subjects. Our experiments reveal that, while GPTs cannot distinguish small details, they have a reasonably good correlation with human annotation and exhibit a similar tendency to heuristic metrics based on design principles, suggesting that they are indeed capable of assessing the quality of graphic design.
 
-<!--
-### Results
-<img src = "https://github.com/CyberAgentAILab/Graphic-design-evaluation-in-GPT/blob/main/images/res.png" title = "res">
-
-### Results with different diversity  
-<img src = "https://github.com/CyberAgentAILab/Graphic-design-evaluation-in-GPT/blob/main/images/plot.png" title = "cmp">
-
 ### Citation
---> 
 ```bibtex
 @misc{
 coming soon