ITIScore: An Image-to-Text-to-Image Rating Framework for the Image Captioning Ability of MLLMs

Image captioning evaluation remains a significant challenge, as vision-language models evolve toward more challenging capabilities such as generating long-form and context-rich descriptions. State-of-the-art evaluation metrics involve extensive computational costs associated with the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges, or instead suffer from the limitations of standard CLIP-based encoders, such as strict token limits, lack of fine-grained sensitivity, or lack of compositional generalization by treating captions as ``bags-of-words.'' We propose a new learned metric that tackles the aforementioned challenges, based on a lightweight cross-encoder that is initialized from a visual question-answering model checkpoint, balancing a strong weight initialization with computational efficiency. Our training scheme uses a carefully assembled data mixture for supervised learning, featuring adversarial LLM-based data augmentations to enhance model sensitivity to fine-grained visual-linguistic errors. We also introduce a new benchmark designed to assess detailed captioning evaluation across diverse scenarios. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed metric achieves state-of-the-art performance while maintaining the efficiency required for large-scale benchmarking, quality-aware decoding, or reward guidance.

Image captioning is one of the most fundamental tasks in computer vision. Owing to its open-ended nature, it has received significant attention in the era of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). In pursuit of ever more detailed and accurate captions, recent work has increasingly turned to reinforcement learning (RL). However, existing captioning-RL methods and evaluation metrics often emphasize a narrow notion of caption quality, inducing trade-offs across core dimensions of captioning. For example, utility-oriented objectives can encourage noisy, hallucinated, or overlong captions that improve downstream question answering while harming fluency, whereas arena-style objectives can favor fluent but generic descriptions with limited usefulness. To address this, we propose a more balanced RL framework that jointly optimizes utility-aware correctness, reference coverage, and linguistic quality. In order to effectively optimize the resulting continuous multi-objective reward formulation, we apply GDPO-style reward-decoupled normalization to continuous-valued captioning rewards and show that it improves performance over vanilla GRPO. Additionally, we introduce length-conditional reward masking, yielding a more suitable length penalty for captioning. Across LLaVA-1.5-7B and Qwen2.5-VL 3B and 7B base models, our method consistently improves caption quality, with peak gains of +13.6 DCScore, +9.0 CaptionQA, and +29.0 CapArena across different models.

The steady improvements of text-to-image (T2I) generative models lead to slow deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks that rely on static datasets, motivating researchers to seek alternative ways to evaluate T2I progress. We present Multimodal Text-to-Image Eval (MT2IE), an evaluation framework in which a single multimodal large language model (MLLM) acts as an evaluator agent, iteratively generating the evaluation prompts and scoring the resulting images. We show that MT2IE's image-text consistency scores have higher correlation with human judgment than metrics previously introduced in the literature. MT2IE generates prompts that are efficient at probing T2I model performance: closely recovering the official T2I model rankings of three structurally distinct benchmarks from just 20 generated evaluation prompts, 28-105x fewer than the benchmarks' own prompt sets. When compared to existing evaluation metrics such as CLIPScore, VIEScore, and VQAScore, MT2IE's T2I model rankings are more faithful and far more consistent across multiple evaluation seeds when using the same number of prompts. MT2IE can also adapt evaluation to the model being tested: rewriting each prompt based on the model's own measured performance to produce a bespoke per-model benchmark that still recovers the official rankings and keeps the evaluated model in an informative scoring range. We hope that these results will encourage the development of dynamic and interactive evaluation frameworks, and mitigate the deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks.