DEPICT: Scoring Text-to-Image Alignment by Answer Agreement
Organizations: Sword Health · NOVALINCS, NOVA University of Lisbon
Abstract
Image-text alignment is a core problem in computer vision with applications in caption evaluation, hallucination detection, data curation, and the benchmarking of text-to-image (T2I) generators. As T2I models improve, benchmarking has become demanding, requiring metrics capable of finding a series of issues like missing objects, swapped attributes, miscounts, and ignored negations. Recent work addresses this by fine-tuning evaluators on preference data or by prompting a vision-language model, either holistically with the caption or with decomposed verification questions. However, existing approaches fall short: fine-tuned metrics remain bound to one backbone and training distribution; holistic metrics miss fine-grained details; and decomposed metrics rely on a fixed-YES assumption that penalizes faithful images whenever that assumption fails. In contrast, we propose DEPICT, a training-free metric that replaces fixed reference answers with expected agreement between image-based and caption-only answers, weighting questions by how decisively the caption determines them. By replacing fixed references, our agreement rule increases negation accuracy from 19% to 88%. To recover the context lost during decomposition, DEPICT merges this agreement score with a holistic score. We evaluate DEPICT on five benchmarks and eleven backbones from three model families and find that it surpasses all training-free metrics and exceeds fine-tuned evaluators on two out of three human-correlation benchmarks.
Figures & tables
| Method | Backbone | GenAI-Bench | TIFA160 | RichHF | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRCC | PLCC | SRCC | PLCC | SRCC | PLCC | ||
| Fine-tuned evaluators | |||||||
| ImageReward † | BLIP | 0.340 | 0.379 | 0.621 | 0.634 | 0.275 | 0.329 |
| PickScore † | CLIP-H | 0.354 | 0.363 | 0.428 | 0.434 | 0.392 | 0.413 |
| UniGenBench++ † | Qwen2.5-VL-72B | 0.461 | 0.444 | 0.608 | 0.590 | 0.533 | 0.517 |
| LongT2IBench † | Qwen2.5-VL-7B | 0.375 | 0.376 | 0.678 | 0.692 | 0.517 | 0.516 |
| Method | Human corr. (SRCC) | Winoground (acc. %) | NegBench | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GenAI-B | TIFA160 | RichHF | Text | Image | Group | acc. % | |
| DSG | 0.549 | 0.673 | 0.594 | 52.0 | 46.5 | 44.5 | 34.7 |
| Soft-TIFA-AM ( Faith ) | 0.546 | 0.762 | 0.636 | 75.8 | 71.8 | 64.8 | 19.1 |
| VQAScore ( Holistic ) | 0.698 | 0.737 | 0.656 | 83.2 | 82.8 | 75.5 | 84.7 |
| Agree | 0.671 | 0.763 | 0.612 | 74.0 | 74.0 | 65.8 | 88.3 |
| Depict | 0.720 | 0.780 | 0.667 | 82.2 | 82.8 | 74.5 | 86.9 |
Appendix figures & tables24 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Benchmark | Source | Evaluated units | Human signal | Metric | (max) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation with human ratings | |||||
| GenAI-Bench | GenAI-Bench prompts and generated images | 9,600 pairs, 1,600 prompts | 1–5 alignment | SRCC, PLCC | 5.47 (13) |
| TIFA160 | TIFA160 prompts, 5 images each | 800 pairs, 160 prompts | 1–5 alignment | SRCC, PLCC | 4.89 (11) |
| RichHF | RichHF-18K test split | 955 pairs, 493 captions | misalignment score | SRCC, PLCC | 5.52 (32) |
| Accuracy | |||||
| Winoground | Winoground | 400 examples, 800 matched pairs | correct pairing | text / image / group acc. | 4.16 (10) |
| Backbone | DSG | Soft-TIFA-AM | VQAScore | Depict | |
| TIFA160 | |||||
| Qwen3.5-4B | 0.678 | 0.715 | 0.705 | 0.743 | |
| Qwen3.5-9B | 0.673 | 0.710 | 0.702 | 0.731 | |
| Qwen3.5-27B | 0.673 | 0.762 | 0.737 | 0.780 | |
| InternVL3.5-4B | 0.592 | 0.671 | 0.653 | 0.696 | |
| InternVL3.5-8B | 0.592 | 0.693 | 0.693 | 0.728 | |
| Backbone | DSG | Soft-TIFA-AM | VQAScore | Depict | |
| TIFA160 | |||||
| Gemma-4-E4B | 0.595 | 0.685 | 0.694 | 0.704 | |
| Gemma-4-12B | 0.285 | 0.545 | 0.496 | 0.547 | |
| Gemma-4-31B | 0.668 | 0.705 | 0.697 | 0.753 | |
| Qwen3.5-27B | 0.673 | 0.762 | 0.737 | 0.780 | |
| Qwen3.6-27B | 0.677 | 0.774 | 0.752 | 0.788 | |
| Backbone | DSG | Soft-TIFA-AM | VQAScore | Agree | Depict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affirmative | |||||
| Qwen3.5-4B | 0.553 | 0.485 | 0.831 | 0.888 | 0.873 |
| Qwen3.5-9B | 0.467 | 0.427 | 0.874 | 0.911 | 0.902 |
| Qwen3.5-27B | 0.731 | 0.483 | 0.885 | 0.912 | 0.903 |
| Qwen3-VL-4B | 0.410 | 0.337 | 0.682 | 0.819 | 0.803 |
| Gemma-4-31B | 0.815 | 0.432 | 0.801 | 0.796 | 0.816 |
| Skill tag | DSG | s-TIFA-AM | VQAScore | Ours | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basic vs advanced | |||||
| Basic only (no advanced tag) | 0.591 | 0.661 | 0.685 | 0.698 | ∗ |
| Advanced (any advanced tag) | 0.427 | 0.357 | 0.607 | 0.646 | ∗ |
| Basic skills | |||||
| Action Relation | 0.584 | 0.621 | 0.709 | 0.733 | ∗ |
| Attribute | 0.562 | 0.594 | 0.700 | 0.726 | ∗ |
| Backbone | Mean (all items) | Mean (least committed) | Improved |
|---|---|---|---|
| InternVL3.5-14B | 5/5 | ||
| InternVL3.5-4B | 5/5 | ||
| InternVL3.5-8B | 5/5 | ||
| Qwen3.5-9B | 5/5 | ||
| Gemma-4-12B | 3/5 | ||
| Qwen3.8-27B | 4/5 |
| Depict | Soft-TIFA-AM | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | Metric | VQAScore | Agree | Soft-TIFA-AM | ( Agree VQA) | VQA |
| GenAI-Bench | SRCC | 0.698 | 0.671 | 0.546 | 0.720 | 0.696 |
| TIFA160 | SRCC | 0.737 | 0.763 | 0.762 | 0.780 | 0.780 |
| RichHF | SRCC | 0.656 | 0.612 | 0.636 | 0.667 | 0.675 |
| Winoground | group acc | 75.5 | 65.8 | 64.8 | 74.5 | 75.2 |
| NegBench | MCQ acc | 84.7 | 88.3 | 19.1 | 86.9 | 62.2 |
| Reasoning on | Winoground | GenAI-Bench † | NegBench † | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| group acc. | SRCC | accuracy | ||
| Holistic term | none | 75.5 | 0.712 | 85.8 |
| holistic query | 78.2 | 0.664 | 84.4 | |
| Decomposed term | none | 65.7 | 0.659 | 89.7 |
| image and text answers | 66.2 | 0.607 | 85.2 | |
| Merged (final) | none | 74.5 | 0.727 | 88.6 |
| Benchmark | Unique Q | NO share | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|
| % [95% CI] | , % | ||
| GenAI-Bench | 8,753 | 3.0 [2.6, 3.5] | 0.3 |
| TIFA160 | 875 | 0.1 [0.0, 0.4] | 0.0 |
| RichHF | 3,019 | 4.0 [2.7, 5.5] | 1.4 |
| Winoground | 3,325 | 2.3 [1.6, 2.9] | 1.1 |
| NegBench | 11,652 | 34.7 [33.8, 35.6] | 0.2 |
Text-Image Alignment
Text-image alignment measures and improves how accurately visual content matches language, from image retrieval and caption checking to text-guided generation.
See all 25 papers