Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) often omit or misrepresent critical visual content in generated image captions. Minimizing such information loss will force LVLMs to focus on image details to generate precise descriptions. However, measuring information loss during modality conversion is inherently challenging due to the modal gap between visual content and text output. In this paper, we argue that the quality of an image caption is positively correlated with the similarity between images retrieved via text search using that caption. Based on this insight, we further propose Cross-modal Identity Mapping (CIM), a reinforcement learning framework that enhances image captioning without requiring additional annotations. Specifically, the method quantitatively evaluates the information loss from two perspectives: Gallery Representation Consistency and Query-gallery Image Relevance. Supervised under these metrics, LVLM minimizes information loss and aims to achieve identity mapping from images to captions. The experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of our method in image captioning, even when compared with Supervised Fine-Tuning. Particularly, on the COCO-LN500 benchmark, CIM achieves a 20% improvement in relation reasoning on Qwen2.5-VL-7B.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Qualitative comparison of retrieved images using different captions. The more detailed the caption, the higher the semantic consistency among the retrieved images. The more accurate the caption, the greater the visual similarity between the retrieved images and the source image.
Figure 2: Verifying the effectiveness of our proposed metrics for quantifying information loss via Pearson correlation. For each LVLM, we plot the correlation between average metrics and the logit of breed classification accuracy. Each point corresponds to one bin, with each bin containing 100 samples. The Pearson correlation coefficient is reported for each model. This correlation verifies the effectiveness of our proposed metrics for quantifying information loss during modality conversion.
Model
Qwen3-VL-8B [ 4 ]
InternVL3-8B [ 85 ]
LLaVA-v1.6-7B [ 42 ]
Species Acc
100.00
100.00
99.98
Breed Acc
40.54
19.29
15.11
Table 1: Evaluation of fine-grained image classification across LVLMs. We report species accuracy and breed accuracy on the Oxford-IIIT Pet dataset [ 50 ] .
Figure 3: The overall architecture of our proposed Cross-modal Identity Mapping (CIM). We first prompt the LVLM to generate image captions in detail. Based on such captions, CIM then retrieve topK relevant images. In this way, the method analyze the Query-gallery Image Relevance (QIR) and Gallery Representation Consistency (GRC) to infer the information loss between the image and its corresponding caption. Finally, by using CIM as reward function, our method forced LVLMs to generate fine-grained and precise captions.
Base Model
Bench
Method
CAPTURE
Objects
Attributes
Relations
Precision
Recall
F1
Precision
Recall
F1
QA
LLaVA1.5 -7B [ 41 ]
COCO -LN500
∘ Base
44.75
81.20
59.02
67.56
58.61
37.2
42.34
14.38
∙ Ours
48.62 ( ↑ 3.9)
83.84 ( ↑ 2.6)
60.70 ( ↑ 1.7)
69.80 ( ↑ 2.2)
71.24 ( ↑ 12.6)
48.91 ( ↑ 11.7)
54.38 ( ↑ 12.0)
24.98 ( ↑ 10.6)
DOCCI 500
∘ Base
50.72
81.13
48.37
59.41
64.12
39.78
48.01
9.19
∙ Ours
57.10 ( ↑ 6.4)
83.12 ( ↑ 2.0)
52.78 ( ↑ 4.4)
63.38 ( ↑ 4.0)
72.06 ( ↑ 7.9)
47.42 ( ↑ 7.6)
56.28 ( ↑ 8.3)
19.87 ( ↑ 10.7)
Qwen2 -VL-7B [ 71 ]
COCO -LN500
∘ Base
46.52
81.12
61.82
69.47
66.48
42.86
48.68
20.47
Table 2: Performance of Reinforcement Learning with CIM on the Base Model over COCO-LN500 [ 53 ] and DOCCI500 [ 48 ] . ↑ / ↓ indicate improvement/degradation over the Base Model (higher is better). The results indicate that post-training the base model with our CIM enhances its ability to generate high-quality captions.
Base Model
Bench
Method
CAPTURE
Objects
Attributes
Relations
Precision
Recall
F1
Precision
Recall
F1
QA
LLaVA1.5 -7B [ 41 ]
COCO -LN500
∘ SFT
46.62
77.09
71.16
73.45
66.65
50.57
54.25
28.59
∘ SC-Captioner [ 82 ]
47.11
76.43
75.65
75.20
65.79
53.01
55.35
33.63
∙ SFT + Ours
47.74( ↑ 0.6)
79.48 ( ↑ 3.1)
69.75 ( ↓ 5.9)
73.77 ( ↓ 1.4)
70.48 ( ↑ 4.7)
51.29 ( ↓ 1.7)
56.04 ( ↑ 0.7)
33.96 ( ↑ 0.3)
DOCCI 500
∘ SFT
60.92
78.15
62.20
68.44
66.85
46.27
53.93
19.87
∘ SC-Captioner [ 82 ]
62.29
77.58
66.05
70.30
67.64
50.70
57.10
22.69
Table 3: Performance of Reinforcement Learning with CIM on the SFT Model over COCO-LN500 [ 53 ] and DOCCI500 [ 48 ] . ↑ / ↓ indicate improvement/degradation over SC-Captioner [ 82 ] (higher is better). Our method consistently improves relation understanding and attribute precision, with minor trade-offs in object recall.
Figure 4: Ablation study of reward components on COCO-LN500 [ 53 ] using Qwen2.5-VL-7B [ 4 ] .
Figure 5: Scalability study of the retrieval corpus on COCO-LN500 [ 53 ] across multiple LVLMs.
Image Encoder
Text Encoder
CAPTURE
Objects
Attributes
Relations
F1
F1
QA
DINOv3 ViT-L/16 [ 64 ]
MiniLM [ 72 ]
48.17
76.62
59.05
41.03
MPNet [ 65 ]
48.64
76.32
59.22
42.49
OpenCLIP ViT-H/14 [ 11 ]
MiniLM [ 72 ]
48.99
76.91
58.96
41.16
MPNet [ 65 ]
48.93
77.59
58.51
44.15
Table 4: Robustness study of diverse retrieval models on COCO-LN500 [ 53 ] using Qwen2.5-VL-7B [ 4 ] .
Figure 6: Prompts for image captioning, relation evaluation, and hierarchical classification.
Model
BLEU-4
METEOR
CAPTURE
Objects
Attributes
Relations
F1
F1
QA
∘ Qwen2-VL-7B [ 71 ]
29.39
16.59
57.96
66.47
52.65
17.57
∘ ShareCaptioner [ 82 ]
39.09
23.05
57.90
66.05
52.27
19.47
∘ Gemini-1.5
24.70
16.25
60.34
68.17
55.69
28.90
∘ Claude-3.7
41.36
20.17
61.02
69.48
55.57
28.78
∙ SFT + Ours
45.16
24.88
64.31
73.87
58.68
36.32
Table 5: Performance comparison of open-source and closed-source models on the DOCCI500 [ 48 ] benchmark. Best results are highlighted in bold. Our model achieves the best performance across all metrics, surpassing both open‑source and closed‑source models.
Base Model
Benchmark
Method
BLEU-4
METEOR
CAPTURE
Objects
Attributes
Relations
Precision
Recall
F1
Precision
Recall
F1
QA
Qwen2-VL [ 71 ]
COCO-LN500
∘ 7B-Base
39.57
20.42
46.52
81.12
61.82
69.47
66.48
42.86
48.68
20.47
∘ 72B-Base
39.37
19.77
47.20
82.52
62.89
70.72
69.36
42.78
49.38
27.46
∙ 7B-Ours
39.63
27.06
48.64
80.90
72.23
75.80
72.45
54.08
58.22
38.71
DOCCI500
∘ 7B-Base
29.39
16.59
57.96
83.69
56.79
66.47
69.96
43.27
52.65
17.57
∘ 72B-Base
30.79
17.57
59.56
84.02
60.21
69.14
71.63
44.31
53.92
27.21
Table 6: Performance of Reinforcement Learning with CIM on Base Models over COCO-LN500 [ 53 ] and DOCCI500 [ 48 ] . Best results are highlighted in bold. The results indicate that post-training the base model with our CIM enhances its ability to generate high-quality captions, and even 7B/8B models can outperform much larger baselines.
Base Model
Benchmark
Method
BLEU-4
METEOR
CAPTURE
Objects
Attributes
Relations
Precision
Recall
F1
Precision
Recall
F1
QA
Qwen2-VL-7B [ 71 ]
COCO-LN500
∘ Base
39.57
20.42
46.52
81.12
61.82
69.47
66.48
42.86
48.68
20.47
∘ SFT
34.93
25.97
47.63
78.03
70.42
73.43
67.91
53.51
56.31
30.06
∘ SC-Captioner [ 82 ]
32.75
26.17
47.92
78.58
72.09
74.60
69.01
54.03
56.93
32.01
∙ SFT + Ours
32.34
26.50
48.36
78.76
72.93
75.13
69.72
55.23
58.10
36.76
DOCCI500
∘ Base
29.39
16.59
57.96
83.69
56.79
66.47
69.96
43.27
52.65
17.57
Table 7: Performance of Reinforcement Learning with CIM on the SFT Model, trained on the DOCCI [ 48 ] training set, over COCO-LN500 [ 53 ] and DOCCI500 [ 48 ] . Best results are highlighted in bold. Our model outperforms both the SFT model and SC-Captioner [ 82 ] .
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison between the base model and the base model trained with reinforcement learning using CIM. Green annotations indicate correct descriptions. Our method enhances the base model’s ability to produce more detailed captions.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison among the base model, the SFT model, and the SFT model trained with reinforcement learning using CIM. Green annotations indicate correct descriptions, while red annotations indicate incorrect descriptions. Compared with the base model and the SFT model, our method produces more detailed captions while maintaining the precision of caption.
Reinforcement Learning (RL) has demonstrated significant gains in image captioning, yet it is still limited in encouraging Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) to explore novel reasoning strategies. This limitation leads to a performance gap between RL and Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT). In this paper, we argue that multi-modal retrieval can serve as an effective reasoning signal for caption refinement. Based on this insight, we present the Retrieval-Guided Refinement for Image Captioning (Re3Cap), a retrieval-guided reasoning strategy that enhances image captioning without requiring additional annotations. Instantiated by Caption Refinement Suggester (CRS) and Caption Quality Assessor (CQA), this strategy identifies hallucinations and omissions in image captions, leading to more accurate and detailed descriptions. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of our method in image captioning, even compared with Supervised Fine-Tuning. Especially, Re3Cap outperforms GRPO with an average improvement of 8.64% in relation reasoning on the COCO-LN500 benchmark.
Haonan Jia, Shichao Dong, Zenghui Sun +7
Taobao & Tmall Group of Alibaba · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Image and video captioning are fundamental tasks that bridge the visual and linguistic domains, playing a critical role in pre-training Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). Current state-of-the-art captioning models are typically trained with Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), a paradigm that relies on expensive, non-scalable annotations and often causes models to memorize specific ground-truth answers, limiting their generality and ability to generate diverse, creative descriptions. To overcome these limitations, we propose applying Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) to the open-ended task of multimodal captioning. We introduce Captioning Reinforcement Learning++ (CapRL++), a novel reference-free training framework that redefines caption quality through its utility: a high-quality caption should enable a non-visual language model to accurately answer questions about the corresponding visual content. CapRL++ employs a decoupled two-stage pipeline where an LVLM generates a caption, and the objective reward is derived from the accuracy of a separate, vision-free LLM answering Multiple-Choice Questions based solely on that caption. Evaluations on more than 20 image and video benchmarks show that CapRL++ improves dense caption quality and strengthens caption-based pretraining across tasks such as spatial and temporal understanding. Pretraining on scalable image and video caption datasets annotated by CapRL++ yields substantial downstream gains. Furthermore, within the Prism Framework for caption quality evaluation, compact models trained with CapRL++ achieve dense captioning performance comparable to substantially larger models such as Qwen2.5-VL-72B and Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B. These results validate that CapRL++ effectively trains models to produce generalizable, high-fidelity descriptions, establishing a robust foundation beyond the limitations of traditional SFT.
Penghui Yang, Long Xing, Xiaoyi Dong +10
Tsinghua University · University of Science and Technology of China · Microsoft +4
Visual-Language Models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in image captioning, visual question answering, and visual reasoning. Yet they remain prone to vision-language misalignment, often producing overly generic or hallucinated descriptions. Existing approaches address this via instruction tuning-requiring costly, large-scale annotated datasets or via complex test-time frameworks for caption refinement. In this work, we revisit image-text alignment through the lens of cycle consistency: given an image and a caption generated by an image-to-text model, the backward mapping through a text-to-image model should reconstruct an image that closely matches the original. In our setup, a VLM serves as the image-to-text component, while a pre-trained text-to-image model closes the loop by reconstructing the image from the generated caption. Building on this, we introduce CycleCap, a fine-tuning scheme to improve image captioning using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a reward based on the similarity between the original and reconstructed images, computed on-the-fly. Unlike previous work that uses cycle consistency loss for preference dataset construction, our method leverages cycle consistency directly as a self-supervised training signal. This enables the use of raw images alone, eliminating the need for curated image-text datasets, while steering the VLM to produce more accurate and grounded text descriptions. Applied to four VLMs ranging from 1B to 7B parameters, CycleCap yields consistent improvements across captioning and hallucination benchmarks, surpassing state-of-the-art methods that rely on supervised cycle consistency training.