Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

EditPPT: Structured Execution and Evaluation for Reliable Slide Editing

Jiheon Kim, Kyudan Jung, Jaegul ChooPublished Jun 29, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Thin evidence
Verify before relying
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

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

Freshness tier: hot
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.

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.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Oct 29, 2026

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

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.