Detailed image captioning is usually framed as an amount problem: a model should mention more visual facts while avoiding hallucination. However, autoregressive VLMs generate captions as ordered sequences, and later generations may be produced under weaker or noisier visual grounding. We therefore argue that long-form captioning should be studied not only by what facts are mentioned, but also by where they appear. We introduce a position-aware rubric representation that decomposes dense human references into atomic visual claims, verifies generated captions against those claims, and induces a quartile-wise composition of supported, hallucinated, and generic content. This lens reveals two qualitatively different failures in long captions: models tend to produce unsupported specificity in the middle, while the final portion often escapes into vague, non-evidential language rather than simply accumulating more hallucination. A same-reference human control does not exhibit these patterns; additional human audits examine the visual validity of the induced labels. Motivated by this diagnosis, we propose PAGER (Position-Aware Grounded Evidence Reinforcement), a GRPO training objective with separate signals for supported fine-grained middle evidence, evidence-bearing tail continuation, claim coverage, and content-aware length control. The result is a closed loop: the same ordered claim representation identifies where long captions fail and supplies the position-specific reward needed to repair those failures. Experiments on detailed-caption benchmarks show that PAGER improves position-wise grounding and pairwise caption preference while preserving competitive global caption quality.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Position-dependent failures in detailed captioning. Top: hallucination rate Hq and generic rate Gq across caption quartiles. Six colored lines are evaluated captioners; the dashed human line is a same-reference control. Statistics use rubric-dimension weights. Shaded regions show 95% image-level paired bootstrap CIs. Bottom: forest plots for Dmid and Dtail . Every model has positive effects with CIs excluding zero; human references do not.
Metric
Generated captions, mean of 6 models
Human references
SQ1
0.527
0.933
SQ4
0.333
0.945
GQ1
0.103
0.066
GQ4
0.281
0.053
Dmid (CI95)
+0.101
−0.001[−0.003,+0.000]
Dtail (CI95)
+0.178
−0.013[−0.028,+0.004]
Table 1: Human-reference control. Applying the same pipeline to dense human references yields near-zero mid-caption hallucination and no tail generic escape. This is a same-reference consistency check rather than an independent completeness test.
Requirement
Diagnostic reason
Reward implication
Sub-caption granularity
Global scores hide where the composition changes.
Reward must operate on claims and sentence positions.
Mid-caption specificity
HQ2/HQ3 rises when models add fine details.
Reward supported fine-grained evidence in the middle, not arbitrary specificity.
Tail evidence density
GQ4 rises even when HQ4 does not.
Penalize non-evidential tail sentences without rewarding fabricated detail.
Length control
Coverage rewards can be hacked by verbosity.
Budget length according to image/reference complexity.
Table 2: The diagnostic findings translate into concrete constraints on reward design.
Figure 2: PAGER training pipeline. Reference-derived rubrics and generated captions provide claim judgments and sentence positions. Four reward terms guide GRPO; the tail term uses a separate sentence-level genericity judge. DeepSeek and human audits are used only for evaluation. At inference, the policy takes an image without a reference or rubric.
Method
Dmid↓
SQ4↑
HQ4↓
GQ4↓
ΔS↑
ΔH↓
Dtail↓
Base
+.096
.290
.298
.412
-.241
-.028
+.269
SFT
+.091
.296
.267
.437
-.203
-.053
+.256
CapRL
+.125
.395
.283
.322
-.151
+.028
+.123
PAGER
+.036
.436
.235
.329
-.094
-.083
+.177
Table 3: Unweighted position metrics on the mixed IIW-400 + DOCCI diagnostic subset ( n=198 ). ΔS=SQ4−SQ1 , ΔH=HQ4−HQ1 , and Dtail=GQ4−GQ1 . Best/second-best values are bold/underlined. Methods are defined in the setup.
Dataset
Method
CAPTURE ↑
DCScore-F1 ↑
Facts/100tok ↑
Length (tok)
CapArena4↑
IIW-400
Base
.638
.507
5.46
257
4.32%
SFT
.622
.402
6.27
131
1.03%
CapRL
.640
.552
3.20
475
8.25%
PAGER
.642
.526
3.43
412
96.28%
DOCCI
Base
.593
.482
5.32
229
5.93%
SFT
.601
.398
6.27
128
2.06%
Table 4: Global benchmark summaries. CAPTURE and DCScore-F1 are quality metrics; facts per 100 tokens and mean token length describe density and verbosity. CapArena4 excludes ties: each baseline faces PAGER , whose row pools those three comparisons. Scores are descriptive; no significance of small quality-score differences is claimed.
Variant
HQ2↓
HQ3↓
SQ4↑
HQ4↓
GQ4↓
Dmid↓
ΔS↑
ΔH↓
PAGER full
.364
.344
.436
.235
.329
+.036
-.094
-.083
w/o Rmid
.421
.408
.418
.241
.341
+.103
-.112
-.071
w/o Rtail
.371
.350
.374
.248
.378
+.039
-.156
-.074
w/o Rlen
.378
.356
.408
.252
.340
+.047
-.118
-.068
w/o filtering
.393
.375
.401
.258
.341
+.064
-.127
-.062
Holistic checklist
.388
.367
.421
.244
.335
+.058
-.103
-.076
Table 5: Component ablations under the position-aware diagnostic. Holistic checklist uses a caption-level score; monotone weight replaces separate middle/tail rewards with increasing late-position weight. Removing each reward term tests its contribution to the target region.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Q1 S/H/G
Q2 S/H/G
Q3 S/H/G
Q4 S/H/G
Qwen-Plus
.483/.444/.073
.447/.520/.033
.418/.517/.065
.372/.417/.211
Qwen3-VL-8B
.521/.377/.102
.481/.463/.055
.488/.420/.091
.365/.411/.224
Qwen3-VL-4B
.542/.364/.094
.494/.453/.053
.495/.449/.056
.330/.346/.324
InternVL3.5-8B
.547/.339/.114
.515/.403/.082
.480/.406/.114
.413/.383/.204
InternVL3.5-4B
.573/.330/.097
.480/.446/.075
.508/.403/.089
.369/.424/.207
LLaVA-v1.5-7B
.498/.364/.138
.302/.551/.147
.212/.610/.178
.146/.337/.517
Appendix
Table 6: Weighted per-model rubric-based position-wise composition on the mixed IIW-400 + DOCCI set ( n=198 ). S/H/G are weighted sentence-level rates. Effect sizes use image-level paired bootstrap ( B=2000 ).
Model
Q1 S/H/G
Q2 S/H/G
Q3 S/H/G
Q4 S/H/G
InternVL3.5-4B
.562/.289/.149
.477/.407/.116
.504/.366/.131
.351/.362/.287
InternVL3.5-8B
.529/.297/.174
.498/.374/.128
.459/.370/.171
.367/.343/.291
Qwen3-VL-4B
.531/.326/.142
.496/.422/.082
.497/.421/.082
.290/.298/.412
Qwen3-VL-8B
.515/.329/.156
.479/.432/.089
.474/.389/.137
.335/.347/.318
LLaVA-v1.5-7B
.486/.336/.178
.285/.511/.204
.200/.573/.227
.120/.293/.586
Qwen-Plus
.487/.398/.115
.462/.485/.053
.426/.476/.098
.359/.349/.293
Appendix
Table 7: Unweighted position-wise diagnostic statistics on the mixed IIW-400 + DOCCI subset ( n=198 ). This table reports the same diagnostic without rubric-dimension weighting, supporting that the two position effects are not artifacts of the weighting scheme. Δhalluc=HQ4−HQ1 and Δsupported=SQ1−SQ4 .
Source
κ vs. human
F1-Supp.
F1-Contr.
F1-Miss.
Primary judge (Qwen3-8B)
0.89
0.92
0.87
0.91
Secondary judge (Qwen3-14B)
0.90
0.92
0.88
0.91
Independent judge (DeepSeek-V3.2)
0.92
0.94
0.90
0.93
Inter-annotator ceiling
0.94
0.96
0.92
0.95
Appendix
Table 8: Verifier reliability against human annotations. All LLM judges are within 0.05 of the human inter-annotator ceiling in Cohen’s κ ; the contradicted class remains the hardest.
Setting
Value
Base model
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
Training data
filtered PixMo-derived long-caption parquet
Training validation file
DCI densely-captioned-images test parquet
Prompt / answer / image keys
problem / answer / images
Prompt template
caption chat template
Shuffle / seed
true / 1
Appendix
Table 9: Main GRPO training hyperparameters.
Setting
Value
Advantage estimator
GRPO
KL loss / penalty
enabled; low-variance KL
KL coefficient
1.0×10−2
Optimizer
AdamW
Learning rate
1.0×10−6
Weight decay
1.0×10−2
Appendix
Table 10: Optimization and systems configuration for the main GRPO run.
Parameter
Value
Role
α
1.0
Reward for a supported checklist item in Rcov
β
0.5
Penalty weight for a contradicted checklist item in Rcov
λmid
0.3
Weight for supported fine-grained evidence in Q2/Q3
λtail
0.2
Penalty weight for generic final-quartile sentences
L0
512
Base caption length budget
c
100
Additional length budget per rubric item
Appendix
Table 11: Reward hyperparameters for the main PAGER run. The reward is R\textscPAGER=Rcov+Rmid+Rtail+Rlen .
Asset
Role in this paper
License / terms identified
Use in this work
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct [ 11 ]
Base captioning model and main GRPO initialization
Apache-2.0
Used for research training and evaluation; no third-party weights are redistributed by this paper.
Qwen3-VL-8B / Qwen3-8B [ 11 ]
Evaluated captioner and checklist / reward judge
Apache-2.0
Used for deterministic judging and evaluation; no third-party weights are redistributed by this paper.
InternVL3.5-8B / InternVL3.5-4B [ 12 ]
Evaluated captioners in the diagnostic study
Apache-2.0
Used for research evaluation; no third-party weights are redistributed by this paper.
LLaVA-v1.5-7B [ 13 ]
Evaluated captioner in the diagnostic study
Apache-2.0 for the project; use is also subject to the licenses and terms of its underlying datasets and base models
Used for research evaluation only; no LLaVA weights, datasets, or checkpoints are redistributed.
DeepSeek-V3.2 [ 34 ]
Independent verifier in the reliability study
MIT
Used for verifier reliability and independent diagnostic comparison; no model weights are redistributed.
PixMo-Cap / PixMo-derived captions [ 17 ]
Source of long-caption training data for the final GRPO run
ODC-BY-1.0; intended for research and educational use under Ai2 Responsible Use Guidelines; generated text may also be subject to provider terms
Used to construct filtered training prompts/rubrics; derived training data are not redistributed unless allowed by the upstream terms.
Appendix
Table 12: Existing assets used in this work and their licenses or terms of use. “No redistribution” means that the paper reports aggregate results or uses the resource internally, but does not repackage or release the third-party asset.
Figure 3: Case-study image aar_test_04938 . The image shows an old Cruis’n World arcade racing cabinet standing next to a black change machine against a horizontal wooden plank wall.
Method
Supported evidence
Hallucinated / unsupported detail
Generic or non-evidential content
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
Correctly identifies a Cruis’n World racing cabinet, active racing screen, steering wheel, change machine, wooden wall, and concrete-like floor.
Introduces a “dragon” in the marquee and misreads the change machine as accepting “$1.50”.
Ends with broad nostalgic framing such as “ready for play” and “retro atmosphere”.
CapRL-Qwen3VL-4B
Covers the arcade cabinet, screen, steering wheel, coin area, foot pedal, change machine, wooden wall, and left-edge red lights.
Misreads the title as Crashin’ World and speculates that the game is a version of Crash Bandicoot .
Uses verbose sectioning and late explanatory language that is not directly visual evidence.
PAGER
Correctly identifies the Cruis’n World cabinet, screen text, control layout, coin hardware, change machine, wooden wall, floor, and left-edge red LEDs.
Minor risk remains in over-specific decorative marquee interpretation, but the caption avoids the major title error and unrelated franchise speculation.
Contains a short meta-style ending, but most tail content remains grounded in visible layout, text, materials, and colors.
Appendix
Table 13: Summary of local caption behavior for Figure 3 . The base model is mostly correct at the global level but ends with generic interpretation. CapRL is long and structured, but introduces a salient title error and speculative game identification. PAGER keeps more of the caption anchored to visible text, hardware, layout, and environmental evidence.
Audit
Outcome
Count
Share
Supported claims
Confirmed true
142/150
94.7%
( PAGER )
Not confirmed / ambiguous
8/150
5.3%
Contradicted sentences
Genuine image conflict
139/150
92.7%
(six models)
Correct but conflicts with reference
3/150
2.0%
Ambiguous / partly occluded
8/150
5.3%
Appendix
Table 14: Image-based audits of supported claims from PAGER and contradicted sentences from the six diagnosed models. Results are descriptive.
Method
Votes
Share
Per-rater share range
PAGER
389
77.8%
72–84%
CapRL
91
18.2%
14–22%
SFT
20
4.0%
2–6%
Appendix
Table 15: Blind preference study with five unpaid volunteers: 100 images and 500 first-place votes.
Category
Base (%)
PAGER (%)
Difference [95% CI]
Non-evidential filler
88
81
−7.0[−17.4,3.6]
Correct, absent from reference
8
14
+6.0[−2.8,15.1]
Visually incorrect
4
5
+1.0[−5.2,7.3]
Inter-annotator κ
.84
.85
—
Appendix
Table 16: Post-RL residual-label percentages and differences (percentage points), with 95% bootstrap intervals. The comparison is descriptive.
Metric
Base
PAGER
Distinct-1
.71
.68
Distinct-2
.58
.55
Self-BLEU-4
.19
.24
Appendix
Table 17: Tail lexical diversity with two sentences per caption.
Method
Dmid
SQ4
HQ4
GQ4
Base
.096 / .089
.290 / .301
.298 / .289
.412 / .410
CapRL
.125 / .118
.395 / .388
.283 / .276
.322 / .336
PAGER
.036 / .041
.436 / .429
.235 / .241
.329 / .330
Appendix
Table 18: Position metrics under Qwen3-8B / DeepSeek-V3.2 on the same mixed IIW-400 + DOCCI diagnostic subset ( n=198 ).
Long-form image captioning exposes a reward granularity problem in RL: captions are judged as whole sequences, while the important errors occur at the level of individual visual claims. A good dense caption should be both faithful and informative, avoiding hallucination without omitting salient details. Yet pairwise preferences, reference-based metrics, and holistic scalar rewards compress these local errors into a single sequence-level signal, obscuring the tradeoff between factuality and coverage. We introduce ClaimDiff-RL, a framework that uses reference-conditioned atomic claim differences as the reward unit for caption RL. Given an image, an actor caption, and a reference caption, a multimodal judge enumerates visually grounded differences, verifies each difference against the image, assigns open-vocabulary error types and severity levels, and produces per-difference statistics for reward composition. This makes hallucinated claims and omitted salient facts separately measurable and tunable. Experiments show that holistic scalar rewards can reduce hallucination by increasing missing facts, while ClaimDiff-RL exposes this faithfulness and coverage tradeoff and enables more balanced operating points. On a 160-image human-labeled diagnostic benchmark, public captioning benchmarks, and VQA benchmarks, ClaimDiff-RL improves the hallucination--missing-fact balance, preserves general capability, and even surpasses Gemini-3-Pro-Preview on several fine-grained Capability dimensions such as object counting, spatial relations, and scene recognition. These results suggest that typed, verifiable claim differences are an effective reward unit for fine-grained and diagnosable caption RL.
Detailed image captioning demands both factual grounding and fine-grained coverage, yet existing methods have struggled to achieve them simultaneously. We address this tension with Reflective Note-Guided Captioning (ReflectCAP), where a multi-agent pipeline analyzes what the target large vision-language model (LVLM) consistently hallucinates and what it systematically overlooks, distilling these patterns into reusable guidelines called Structured Reflection Notes. At inference time, these notes steer the captioning model along both axes -- what to avoid and what to attend to -- yielding detailed captions that jointly improve factuality and coverage. Applying this method to 8 LVLMs spanning the GPT-4.1 family, Qwen series, and InternVL variants, ReflectCAP reaches the Pareto frontier of the trade-off between factuality and coverage, and delivers substantial gains on CapArena-Auto, where generated captions are judged head-to-head against strong reference models. Moreover, ReflectCAP offers a more favorable trade-off between caption quality and compute cost than model scaling or existing multi-agent pipelines, which incur 21--36% greater overhead. This makes high-quality detailed captioning viable under real-world cost and latency constraints.
Kyungmin Min, Minbeom Kim, Kang-il Lee +2
IPAI, Seoul National University · Dept. of ECE, Seoul National University · Adobe Research
Accurately detecting and localizing hallucinations is a critical task for ensuring high reliability of image captions. In the era of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), captions have evolved from brief sentences into comprehensive narratives, often spanning hundreds of words. This shift exponentially increases the challenge: models must now pinpoint specific erroneous spans or words within extensive contexts, rather than merely flag response-level inconsistencies. However, existing benchmarks lack the fine granularity and domain diversity required to evaluate this capability. To bridge this gap, we introduce DetailVerifyBench, a rigorous benchmark comprising 1,000 high-quality images across five distinct domains. With an average caption length of over 200 words and dense, token-level annotations of multiple hallucination types, it stands as the most challenging benchmark for precise hallucination localization in the field of long image captioning to date. Our benchmark is available at https://zyx-hhnkh.github.io/DetailVerifyBench/.
Xinran Wang, Yuxuan Zhang, Xiao Zhang +7
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China