MSD-Score: Multi-Scale Distributional Scoring for Reference-Free Image Caption Evaluation

Evaluating image captions requires cohesive assessment of both visual semantics and language pragmatics, which is often not entirely captured by most metrics. As such metrics increasingly guide model development, benchmarking, and system optimization in multimodal AI, inaccuracies in evaluation can misrepresent true progress. We introduce Redemption Score(RS), a novel evaluation framework for multi-modal generation by triangulating three complementary signals: (1) Mutual Information Divergence (MID) for global image-text distributional alignment, (2) DINO-based perceptual similarity of cycle-generated images for visual grounding, and (3) LLM Text Embeddings for contextual text similarity against human references. A calibrated fusion of these signals allows RS to offer a more holistic assessment. On the Flickr8k benchmark, RS achieves a Kendall-$τ$ of 58.42, outperforming most prior methods and demonstrating superior correlation with human judgments without requiring task-specific training. Our framework provides a more robust and nuanced evaluation by thoroughly examining both the visual accuracy and text quality together, with consistent performance across Conceptual Captions and MS COCO.

Reference-free image-to-text evaluators are now standard for scoring image-caption alignment, yet it is unclear whether they respect semantic invariances. We present an invariance probe on five popular evaluators (CLIPScore, PAC-S, UMIC, FLEUR, and a deterministic LLM judge) under semantics-preserving perturbations along three axes -- spatial (flips, context-preserving repositioning, light rotations), object (scale, category), and socio-linguistic framing (cultural/economic adjectives with neutral and length-matched controls). Across curated slices of three detection datasets and three caption evaluation suites, we find consistent non-semantic sensitivities, where benign spatial edits and simple phrasing changes shift scores by $\approx$6--9% on average, and for systems separated by just 0.7%, these shifts can cause ranking flips in up to $\sim$37% of cases, particularly under spatial changes. A small human study also supports this finding and confirms that annotators generally judge perturbed pairs as equally correct, so these shifts reflect metric behavior rather than semantic change. We further propose invariance-calibrated scoring, a post-hoc adjustment that roughly halves median absolute sensitivity while retaining correlation with learned caption evaluators.

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.