Yuxin Chen

Papers on this page may belong to the following people: Yuxin Chen, Yuxin Chen


2026

While prompt engineering offers effective control over Text-to-Image (T2I) generation, it remains labor-intensive for large-scale production. We present PRISM-DUEL, a black-box framework that formalizes prompt optimization as Automatic Prompt Engineering (APE), motivated by advertising workflows requiring low-latency, diverse variants faithful to a human-designed ads. Since zero-shot LLMs are unreliable judges of image quality, PRISM-DUEL obtains label-free pairwise preferences and rationales from an LLM judge over pairs of generated images, then uses a dueling-bandit optimizer to optimize a prompt for generating controlled variations while matching the reference ad’s visual content. By iteratively steering the prompt distribution towards higher-quality generations and improving posterior calibration, PRISM-DUEL preserves visual similarity and semantic faithfulness while increasing diversity. Experiments on PartiPrompts and DreamBooth across Gemini 2.5 Flash Image, FLUX.1, and Qwen-Image show consistent gains over strong baselines in visual faithfulness and prompt interpretability.

2022

In the context of data labeling, NLP researchers are increasingly interested in having humans select rationales, a subset of input tokens relevant to the chosen label. We conducted a 332-participant online user study to understand how humans select rationales, especially how different instructions and user interface affordances impact the rationales chosen. Participants labeled ten movie reviews as positive or negative, selecting words and phrases supporting their label as rationales. We varied the instructions given, the rationale-selection task, and the user interface. Participants often selected about 12% of input tokens as rationales, but selected fewer if unable to drag over multiple tokens at once. Whereas participants were near unanimous in their data labels, they were far less consistent in their rationales. The user interface affordances and task greatly impacted the types of rationales chosen. We also observed large variance across participants.