Shared-Foundation, Divergent-Choices Comparison

Two systems share a common foundation but diverge across attention, scale, training, and deployment.

Prompt

Create a clean comparison diagram titled "Shared Foundation, Divergent Choices" for an academic paper.

Layout:
- Top: one wide shared foundation block labeled "Shared pretraining foundation" with small icons for data, tokenizer, transformer layers, and optimization.
- From the shared block, split into two parallel columns: "System A" and "System B".
- Add four comparison rows: Attention pattern, Model scale, Training objective, Deployment context.
- Each row should show matched but divergent choices, connected back to the shared foundation with subtle branching arrows.
- Bottom: two outcome boxes labeled "Efficiency / controllability" and "Capability / generalization".

Style:
- Publication-ready vector-like diagram on white background.
- Navy foundation block, teal System A accents, coral System B accents, neutral gray dividers.
- Use concise labels only, maximum 6 words per cell.
- Include small schematic icons but no decorative clutter.
- Sans-serif typography, high contrast, suitable for a methods or related-work figure.

Use in Generator

When to use

For LLM vs SLM, dense vs sparse, supervised vs self-supervised contrasts.

Variations

Three-way comparison

Add a third column for "Hybrid (small with retrieval)" and add a fifth row "Knowledge Source" comparing parametric vs non-parametric memory across the three.

Tips

Always show the shared foundation at the top. It is what makes the comparison meaningful.
Limit to 4-5 dimensions. Above that, the table becomes the figure and you should use a real table.
End with outcome boxes summarising "what you get". Without them the comparison feels academic.

FAQ

How do I show evolution over time?

Add a horizontal arrow across the bottom labeled "2019 -> today" with milestone dots showing how each dimension shifted.