GUILGET: GUI Layout GEneration with Transformer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sketching out Graphical User Interface (GUI) layout is part of the pipeline of designing a GUI and a crucial task for the success of a software application. Arranging all components inside a GUI layout manually is a time-consuming task. In order to assist designers, we developed a method named GUILGET to automatically generate GUI layouts from positional constraints represented as GUI arrangement graphs (GUIAGs). The goal is to support the initial step of GUI design by producing realistic and diverse GUI layouts. The existing image layout generation techniques often cannot incorporate GUI design constraints. Thus, GUILGET needs to adapt existing techniques to generate GUI layouts that obey to constraints specific to GUI designs. GUILGET is based on transformers in order to capture the semantic in relationships between elements from GUI-AG. Moreover, the model learns constraints through the minimization of losses responsible for placing each component inside its parent layout, for not letting components overlap if they are inside the same parent, and for component alignment. Our experiments, which are conducted on the CLAY dataset, reveal that our model has the best understanding of relationships from GUI-AG and has the best performances in most of evaluation metrics. Therefore, our work contributes to improved GUI layout generation by proposing a novel method that effectively accounts for the constraints on GUI elements and paves the road for a more efficient GUI design pipeline.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".