arxiv-2608-24103 · paper

ACE: A Self-Correcting Agentic Canvas Editor for Multi-Slide Presentation Automation

Created: 2026-08-25 · Ingested: 2026-09-09

Commercial design platforms increasingly edit documents through large language model (LLM) agents, but two practical problems block reliable deployment: legacy document formats expose only \emph{flat}, absolutely positioned elements, so agents must recompute coordinates and routinely break layouts; and design has no unique ground truth, so diff-against-reference metrics penalize valid-but-different outputs. We present \textbf{ACE}, an agentic canvas editor over a \emph{hierarchical scene-graph} with a presentation-specialized action space (98 tools), paired with \textbf{CARE}, a content-aware

In brief

Editing slides through a hierarchical scene graph rather than flat, absolutely positioned XML removes most of the coordinate arithmetic that breaks agent layouts, and a reference-free judge critique can serve as the missing verify signal for a task with no ground truth.

ACE pairs a 98-tool scene-graph action space with CARE, a router that feeds only the relevant deck slice, and a self-correction loop where an instruction-following judge scores the original-to-prediction diff and its natural-language critique becomes the next instruction. Tested on figma-slide-bench-v1 (97 tasks, 94 evaluable) against a Claude-Skill HTML agent and the PPTArena OpenXML baseline, across claude-sonnet-4-6, gpt-5.5, gemini-3.5-flash.

On 53 tasks ACE reaches IF 4.45/VQ 4.02 vs HTML 4.09/3.89 and PPTArena 2.38/2.30, at 1.75x the speed and ~44% lower cost. On the full 94 tasks IF 4.23 vs 3.81, p = .010. Single-pass ACE alone scores 4.04/3.75; the loop adds +0.41 IF. 66% of tasks halt after 1 pass.

Evidence is unusually careful about circularity: 26 blind raters, 935 judgments, agree with the in-loop judge on 78% of decided overall cases; 2 out-of-loop judge families keep the ranking and retain roughly two-thirds of the +0.94 in-loop self-correction gain. Leave-one-out ablations at fixed backbone isolate representation, router, tools, and loop separately.

VQ means are statistically indistinguishable from HTML; 9 novel tasks stay low at 3.78/3.22; interactivity remains weak; everything is Figma-Slides, with PowerPoint transfer untested beyond the OOXML ablation.

If you build document agents, the representation choice looks worth more than tool count, and a critique-as-reward loop is testable without references.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-09, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

supportsIn open-ended editing tasks with no unique correct output (multi-slide design editing), a separate judge model that scores the structural diff between the original and edited artifact against the instruction, and returns its critique verbatim as the next-turn instruction, raises instruction-following over a single pass, but the gain is selective: most tasks pass on the first attempt, and a minority of the ones that enter the loop get worse unless an earlier iteration is restored when the judge's own score declines.