Detailed captions transfer visual information into vision-language model supervision, but quality is easily conflated with length: long single-pass outputs still miss small objects, text, and spatial relations or promote uncertain observations into confident claims. We formulate fine-grained captioning as recoverable visual information transfer, in which a teacher acquires missing evidence under a finite observation budget and converts it into reusable supervision. ZoomCap uses a draft caption to route conditional knowledge retrieval, OCR-sensitive reading, coverage-gap recovery, and adaptive visual zooming, allocating deeper crops only to the most complex eligible region, deriving spatial relations from grounded geometry, and fusing non-duplicate evidence. We also introduce FactCycle, which scores caption-derived atomic claims on two blind anchors--source image (truthfulness) and reconstruction (realizability)--separating fabrication from generator loss claim by claim; human and multi-judge comparisons complement this fact-level view. Against Qwen3.5-397B-A17B captions, ZoomCap achieves an 81.9% human tie-adjusted preference score with a teacher over 10x smaller, and FactCycle counts 52.4 transferred claims per image vs. 31.5 for ScaleCap. The evidence also transfers: in continual pre-training, ZoomCap-450K improves the 11-benchmark average by 1.31-2.38 points over the strongest competing corpus and Ling-Tiny-VL-v3 gains 1.4 points on a production document/OCR monitor suite (1.5 on perception) at 60B tokens; in medical pre-training, 2.64M ZoomCap-captioned images improve five VQA benchmarks by 3.04 points (vs. 1.76 for same-image Gemini-3.1-Pro captions).
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Evidence preservation comparisons. (a) On the same image, five targets remain partial or missing from ScaleCap ( Xing et al., 2025 ) and Gemini-3.1-Pro ( Google DeepMind, 2026 ) but are retained by ZoomCap. (b) ZoomCap-450K has 1.45 × ScaleCap’s total characters and a 1.58 × larger P99 character length.
Figure 2: ZoomCap overview. From a raw image and a draft caption, ZoomCap routes each sample through agentic evidence acquisition: external-knowledge search, OCR extraction for text-, chart-, and document-like images, and adaptive visual zoom-in for detail-rich scenes. The zoom-in branch combines grounded boxes, semantic regions, caption-coverage gaps, recursive patch observations, and A-SPOE relation facts before multi-source fusion produces the final caption.
Figure 3: Adaptive zoom-in mechanisms. Left: rule complexity nominates dense parents while the agent rejects uninformative zooms; only the highest-scoring parent approved by both expands. Center: caption-coverage gaps derived from draft-grounded entity boxes trigger targeted re-observation (example from PrefBench-456). Right: A-SPOE retains only relations supported by the geometric margin.
Figure 4: FactCycle under its two blind anchors. The same blind-extracted claim set F(ci) is scored against the source image (Truthfulness τ ) and against the fixed-generator reconstruction (Realizability ρ ); joining the two verdicts per claim yields four cells, and the headline FCtrans aggregates the transferred cell.
Figure 5: Information density and generative recoverability in FactCycle. (a) each point is one FactCycle-250 image with per-source linear fits; ZoomCap occupies the high-support, high-similarity corner. (b) mean extracted claims per caption: 67.1 vs. 41.9 and 20.7.
Caption source
#Facts/img ↑
τ : Truthfulness (%) ↑
transferred (%) ↑
specious (%) ↓
unrendered fab. (%) ↓
FCtrans↑
DINO ↑
ShareGPT4V-450K ( Chen et al., 2024a )
20.7
81.4
80.3
16.6
2.0
14.8
0.566
ScaleCap-450K ( Xing et al., 2025 )
41.9
88.9
88.2
7.4
2.6
31.5
0.620
ZoomCap-450K (Ours)
67.1
93.8
90.9
3.4
1.7
52.4
0.696
Table 1: FactCycle master table on FactCycle-250 (two anchors, one blind claim set). The same blind claim set is scored on both anchors by the same blind judge pair ( Kimi-K3 , Qwen3.8-Max ) under one supported/unsupported/unverifiable rubric; neither judge sees the caption, its corpus identity, or the other anchor’s image (protocol in Appendix E ). #Facts/img counts blind-extracted claims; τ and FCtrans follow equation 6 –equation 8 ; the transferred/specious/unrendered-fabrication shares, with the excluded true-but-unrendered generator cell, partition the claims decidable on both anchors. ρ is prose-only (Section 4.1.1 ). DINO is DINOv3 ( Siméoni et al., 2025 ) source–reconstruction similarity, a judge-independent global check.
Figure 6: Paired-preference evaluation against Qwen3.5-397B-A17B on PrefBench-456. ZoomCap’s largest gains are in knowledge richness and information coverage.
(b) Zoom budget — direct head-to-head; the two rows are its two sides
Full second-level pyramid
28.8
36.3
23.4
50.1
10.13
Table 2: Evidence-stream attribution (a) and zoom-budget policy (b) ablations on PrefBench-456; cells are tie-adjusted preference scores (%) (wins plus half ties; sides sum to 100). (a) judges each configuration against the same Qwen3.5-397B-A17B single-pass caption (first-level crops only); (b) fixes the streams and pairs the two zoom policies directly (rows = two sides of one head-to-head; crops include the second level).
Doc & OCR suite
Perception suite
Bench.
Base
+ ZoomCap
Bench.
Base
+ ZoomCap
ChartQA ( Masry et al., 2022 )
83.7
83.9 (+0.2)
AI2D ( Kembavi et al., 2016 )
82.1
81.8 (-0.2)
DocVQA ( Mathew et al., 2021 )
95.4
95.6 (+0.1)
eyes_general
0.86
0.83 (-0.03)
InfoVQA ( Mathew et al., 2022 )
80.2
80.4 (+0.2)
eyes_vertical
71.1
71.2 (+0.1)
OCRBench ( Liu et al., 2024c )
86.4
86.7 (+0.3)
hallusion_intern ( Guan et al., 2024 )
58.6
60.0 (+1.4)
OCRBenchV2-a ( Fu et al., 2025 )
40.1
40.1 (+0.1)
MMBench ( Liu et al., 2024b )
78.6
79.1 (+0.5)
Table 3: General-domain production adoption (Ling-Tiny-VL-v3). Matched 60B-token runs share checkpoint, hyperparameters, and seed; the experimental arm swaps the production vl_caption snapshot ( pretrain_caption_20260623 ) for zoomcap_pretrain_1600w (16M ZoomCap captions, up-sampled 4× to a 20% caption-group share); sub-items average the four common 40–55B checkpoints.
Medical pretraining recipe
Medical images
Hallusion (intern)
GMAI MMBench
PathVQA
PMC VQA
SLAKE
VQA RAD
Avg. gain
Reference recipe (128 × H800)
3.66M
60.9
55.3
39.4
60.9
68.6
64.3
–
+ Gemini-3.1-Pro captions (64 × H800)
+2.64M
59.4
59.3
40.0
62.8
71.3
63.9
+1.76
+ ZoomCap captions (Ours; 64 × H800)
+2.64M
60.4
61.4
39.7
64.2
71.0
67.4
+3.04
Table 4: Medical-domain production adoption (Ling-Tiny-VL-v3). Gemini-3.1-Pro and ZoomCap caption the same 2.64M images under one 64-H800, ∼ 50B-token recipe (the 128-H800 reference is not compute-matched); Avg. gain covers the five medical VQAs.
Model
Pretraining Data
Info VQA
Doc VQA
Chart QA
MM Star
Math Vista
LLaVA Bench
MMVet
MMB
MMMU
SEED
AI2D
Avg.
Qwen2.5-7B + Qwen2.5-ViT
Vanilla
43.66
77.25
73.56
45.93
47.20
51.70
48.35
72.47
44.78
71.80
74.03
59.16
ShareGPT4V-450K
45.80
79.46
74.20
48.87
49.60
44.70
49.22
72.52
42.89
72.38
74.38
59.46
DenseFusion-450K
47.94
81.48
74.36
50.80
45.20
54.00
48.17
72.05
45.00
71.66
74.16
60.44
ScaleCap-450K
49.02
81.94
74.96
50.39
46.60
50.00
47.39
73.71
43.29
72.32
75.68
60.48
ZoomCap-450K (Ours)
51.08
82.64
74.76
52.66
49.30
54.80
52.75
74.65
48.40
72.72
75.94
62.70
Qwen2.5-3B + Qwen2.5-ViT
Vanilla
37.35
70.11
70.24
47.13
44.70
43.80
42.20
68.36
39.00
69.56
70.76
54.84
Table 5: CPT comparison with different 450K caption datasets on 11 benchmarks. Within each backbone block only the CPT caption corpus varies; all methods are re-evaluated with Qwen3.5-397B-A17B for judge-dependent benchmarks.
Figure 7: Qualitative FactCycle reconstruction comparison. Each row uses captions of the same source image to condition the fixed text-to-image generator; ZoomCap reconstructions preserve more of the source composition and fine-grained content; the remaining fourteen FactCycle-250 pairs appear in Appendix Figure 9 .
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Scene
Caption source
#Facts/img ↑
τ (%) ↑
transferred (%) ↑
specious (%) ↓
unrendered fab. (%) ↓
FCtrans↑
Indoor
ShareGPT4V-450K ( Chen et al., 2024a )
19.6
81.6
79.0
17.3
2.4
14.3
ScaleCap-450K ( Xing et al., 2025 )
40.2
88.6
87.1
8.3
2.6
30.3
ZoomCap-450K (Ours)
68.8
93.2
88.6
4.0
2.0
52.4
Outdoor nature
ShareGPT4V-450K ( Chen et al., 2024a )
19.7
81.2
78.7
18.7
1.6
14.0
ScaleCap-450K ( Xing et al., 2025 )
39.0
89.5
89.5
6.3
2.5
30.1
ZoomCap-450K (Ours)
58.8
94.1
91.8
3.6
1.6
46.3
Appendix
Table 7: Two-anchor FactCycle scoring per scene bucket (50 images each). Columns follow Table 1 : #Facts/img counts blind-extracted claims, Truthfulness τ is supported/(supported+unsupported) against the source image; the transferred, specious, and unrendered-fabrication shares cover claims decidable on both anchors and, with the excluded true-but-unrendered generator cell, sum to 100%. Per-bucket realizability is discussed in the Realizability accounting paragraph below.
Caption source
Metric
entity
attribute
spatial
count
small obj.
action
other
ShareGPT4V-450K
transferred (%) ↑
89.5
78.8
77.4
68.0
78.7
70.7
86.7
specious (%) ↓
10.1
18.5
18.5
20.1
19.8
24.1
8.6
unrendered fab. (%) ↓
0.1
1.5
3.1
6.4
0.9
3.3
3.6
ScaleCap-450K
transferred (%) ↑
94.2
87.8
82.8
83.8
85.4
84.8
93.6
specious (%) ↓
4.8
8.2
9.4
7.0
8.4
8.1
4.0
unrendered fab. (%) ↓
0.5
2.4
4.5
4.9
3.7
4.2
1.8
Appendix
Table 8: Two-anchor FactCycle quadrant shares by fact category. Shares are computed over claims decidable on both anchors within each category: transferred (true and rendered), specious (fabricated yet rendered), and unrendered fabrication (fabricated and unrendered); the true-but-unrendered generator cell is excluded from caption metrics. Shading marks the best cell of each column (highest transferred, lowest specious and lowest unrendered fabrication).
Caption source
Fabricated-then- rendered (%) ↓
True-among- rendered (%) ↑
Fabrication rate (%) ↓
ShareGPT4V-450K ( Chen et al., 2024a )
88.1
79.7
18.4
ScaleCap-450K ( Xing et al., 2025 )
72.5
87.0
9.9
ZoomCap-450K (Ours)
64.7
92.9
5.1
Appendix
Table 9: Conservative dual-anchor accounting on FactCycle-250. In the conservative variant, reconstruction-leg unverifiable verdicts count toward the unrealized denominator. Fabricated-then-rendered: share of claims unsupported by the source image that the reconstruction nevertheless renders; true-among-rendered: share of rendered claims that the source image also supports; fabrication rate: share of claims unsupported by the source image under the conservative denominator. Lower is better for all three.
Figure 10: Checkpoint-level curves for the general-domain adoption study. Suite means over the shared checkpoints (40–55B tokens) for the baseline mixture and the mixture with ZoomCap captions: (a) the nine-benchmark Doc & OCR suite, (b) OmniDocBench, (c) the nine-benchmark perception suite; the gains are stable across checkpoints.
Unlike question answering, where a query specifies a perceptual target, open-ended detailed captioning must determine what evidence to acquire and how to integrate it into a coherent global description. We propose Observation-Adaptive Video Captioner (OACap), a caption-centered agent that turns unsupported or missing information into targeted observation requests, uses spatiotemporal tools to acquire evidence, and iteratively verifies and revises the caption. OACap captions consistently improve performance across general video-understanding benchmarks using a fixed text-only reader. To better diagnose the information they preserve, we introduce Factual-Semantic Captioning Bench (FSCap-Bench). Its Core-Support Factuality Score (CSFS) combines claim precision with importance-aware fact coverage and responds as expected to four controlled perturbation types on 93.0-98.3% of valid caption pairs. Its Cross-Modal Semantic Round-Trip Score (CSRS) measures semantic preservation through a video-caption-video-caption round trip by matching atomic facts from source and recovered captions. Together, they connect downstream textual-memory utility with factual and semantic preservation.
Hao Shi, Hong Yan, Xiaoyang Zhang +3
Ant Group · Zhejiang University · Peking University
Existing video captioning methods struggle to balance visual fidelity and redundancy: holistic captions are compact but lose fine-grained evidence, whereas segment-wise captions improve coverage but introduce heavy redundancy. We propose CodecCap, a codec-inspired framework for high-fidelity dense video captioning. Analogous to video codecs, CodecCap represents videos using keyframe and residual captions. Keyframe captions exhaustively encode stable visual context, while residual captions capture temporally only localized actions, motions and changes. This effectively preserves fine-grained visual evidence while reducing redundant descriptions. To quantify the fidelity of captions, we introduce VidCapQA, a caption-then-QA benchmark with 1,000 questions across 14 capability dimensions. Results on VidCapQA show that captions directly generated by strong VLMs still miss many visual details, highlighting caption representation as a critical bottleneck. Experiments show that CodecCap significantly surpasses direct captioning with the same underlying VLMs, suggesting keyframe-residual captioning a way for high-fidelity video-language supervision. We further use CodecCap to construct CodecVDC-100K, a large-scale dense captioning dataset with anchor, residual, scene-level, and video-level supervision.
Zihan Lin, Songhe Deng, Shuwei He +6
ERNIE Team, Baidu · College of Artificial Intelligence, Inner Mongolia University
Evaluating detailed image captions from Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires going beyond surface-level semantic similarity. Reference-based metrics (e.g., CIDEr and SPICE) and LLM-as-scorer protocols struggle to verify dense factual claims, while existing QA-based alternatives generally offer lower probe density, narrower domain coverage, or no explicit alignment between individual questions and segmented image regions. We introduce CapProbe, a full-scene dense QA benchmark that turns detailed caption evaluation into region-aligned factual checking. Each image is decomposed into coarse semantic regions covering both foreground and background elements; for every retained region, we generate multiple-choice questions spanning 10 semantic categories, forming a dense checklist of probed visual facts. Guided by a two-tier taxonomy of 37 L1 domains and 219 L2 sub-domains, CapProbe comprises 346 images, 1,868 regions, and 25,650 questions, averaging 74 QA pairs per image. A language judge answers from the caption alone; an Uncertain option and Effective Accuracy provide a judge-dependent proxy for distinguishing unanswered probes from incorrectly resolved ones, while density-based metrics penalize verbose yet uninformative captions. The protocol is cost-effective: by converting unconstrained scalar scoring into structured MCQ reading, it reduces open-ended scoring bias while remaining judge-conditioned and yields relatively stable model rankings under a fixed reader. Experiments on 13 VLMs show large Coverage gaps across models, a clear competency-efficiency trade-off, and failure modes that sparse or overlap-based evaluation often misses. The benchmark data, annotations, and evaluation code will be released soon.