Do Image-Text Metrics Respect Semantic Invariances?

Evaluating image captions without references remains challenging because global embedding similarity often misses fine-grained mismatches such as hallucinated objects, missing attributes, or incorrect relations. We propose MSD-Score, a reference-free metric that models image patch and text token embeddings as von Mises-Fisher mixtures on the unit hypersphere. Instead of treating each modality as a single point, MSD-Score formulates image-text matching as a multi-scale distributional scoring problem. Semantic discrepancies are quantified via a weighted bi-directional KL divergence and combined with global similarity in a multi-scale framework for both single- and multi-candidate evaluations. Extensive experiments show that MSD-Score achieves state-of-the-art correlation with human judgments among reference-free metrics. Beyond accuracy, its probabilistic formulation yields transparent and decomposable diagnostics of local grounding errors, providing a deterministic complementary signal to holistic similarity metrics and judge-based evaluators.

Image captioning is a primary task in vision--language research, yet assessing how faithfully a caption preserves image semantics without relying on reference captions remains unsettled. Prevailing evaluations rely on human-annotated references, whose content reflects annotator intent and captioning proficiency. In this paper, we study a reconstruction-based principle for caption evaluation: a caption is as good as its capacity to enable reconstruction of the original image. However, because captioning inherently compresses visual information, it is impossible to recover all details, and pixel-wise comparison between reconstructed and source images is neither feasible nor meaningful. Through our in-depth analysis of the nature of captions, whose fundamental purpose is to transmit the semantic content of an image, we propose a revised principle: a caption is as good as its capacity to enable a reconstruction that is semantically equivalent to the original. To assess semantic equivalence, we test whether the reconstruction matches the original image across a suite of downstream vision--language tasks, yielding a reference-free, task-conditioned caption score. We characterize component-dependent limitations and introduce the lower-cost Captioning Turing Test Dataset (CTTD) surrogate.

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate outputs of other models, for image-to-text (I2T) tasks such as visual question answering, and text-to-image (T2I) generation tasks. Despite this growing reliance, the reliability of these Evaluator VLMs remains under explored. In this work, we systematically evaluate the reliability of Evaluator VLMs across both I2T and T2I tasks. We introduce targeted perturbations that degrade output quality along key error dimensions, including object hallucinations, spatial reasoning, factual grounding, and visual fidelity. These perturbations test whether Evaluator VLMs can reliably account for these quality degrading errors in their evaluations. Using a comprehensive benchmark of over 4000 perturbed instances spanning 40 perturbation dimensions, we evaluate 4 prominent VLMs using single-answer scoring, pairwise comparison, and reference-guided paradigms. Our findings reveal that current VLM evaluators exhibit substantial blind spots: they often fail to detect perturbed outputs - in some cases exceeding 50%, struggle particularly with fine-grained compositional and spatial errors, and are often insensitive to hallucinated content that contradicts the input image. Pairwise comparison proves more reliable, though failure rates persist. These results highlight the unreliable nature of current Evaluator VLMs and urge caution in their deployment for benchmarking and development decisions. Code and data have been made publicly available.