EditPPT: Structured Execution and Evaluation for Reliable Slide Editing
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Reliable slide editing requires precise modifications to intended objects while preserving the rest of the presentation. We argue that slide editing is a problem of structured, constrained modification rather than open-ended code generation. Despite the complexity of real presentations, editing requests can largely be decomposed into the objects to change, the operations to apply, and the state to preserve. This perspective guides both evaluation and execution. For evaluation, we introduce DeckEdit-Bench, 183 editing tasks on 28 human-authored decks whose target and preserved objects are annotated at the shape level, so that intended and unintended changes are scored mostly by deterministic rules. For execution, we present EditPPT, a multi-agent framework that resolves targets before editing, restricts each specialist to a subset of 37 predefined tools, and validates each edit for instruction fulfillment and preservation, correcting or rolling back failed ones. Across five backbone models, EditPPT reaches 66.7-74.9% Task Success while keeping Preservation above 97%. Even with an open 27B model and no task-specific fine-tuning, it approaches Claude Code with Sonnet 5 in Task Success while better preserving the original deck. These results suggest that constraining how edits are executed, not only model scale, makes slide editing more reliable.
Results and benchmarks
Reliable slide editing requires precise modifications to intended objects while preserving the rest of the presentation.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction tuning | PPTPilot | Shape IF. | 82.7 | paper-derived |
| Instruction tuning | gpt-6-luna | Shape Success | 70.0 | paper-derived |
| Instruction tuning | Qwen3.8-27B | Shape Success | 37.5 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Instruction tuning, Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer, Agentic systems
Domains
Large Language Models, AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.