Image Captioning Evaluation

Class labels offer compact supervision for describing cultural-heritage images when expert text annotations are scarce. We investigate a batik-captioning cascade that integrates a LoRA-adapted DINOv2 classifier with Qwen2.5-VL-7B, adapted using LoRA and loaded in 4-bit NF4. A $3\times2$ evaluation combines three captioner conditions with two inference prompts to examine adaptation and predicted-class injection. Across 150 caption-evaluation images, all three injected conditions achieve a ground-truth class-label mention rate of 0.9067. The classifier's separate test yields 96.10% pooled accuracy, with 98.33% on 300 public-source images and 75.76% on 33 local images. Supported-class macro-F1 and balanced accuracy on the local subset are 0.8493 and 0.8302, respectively. The classifier and captioner use separate partitions, and their training--evaluation overlap remains unquantified. Differences in label semantics and training support also affect interpretation of the source-specific accuracy gap. Reference-based caption metrics and image--text compatibility scores produce different model rankings. Qualitative examples show both retention of correctly predicted identities and propagation of classification errors into fluent descriptions. These findings characterize how class conditioning preserves label information and transfers upstream errors into batik captions under scarce text annotation.

Current image-text evaluation often relies on a global score, which gives limited insight into which semantic details are supported by the image. Explainable metrics provide rationales, but the visual evidence supporting those rationales can still be difficult to verify. We introduce VisExMEM, a reference-free evaluator that decomposes captions into atomic claims, localizes visual evidence, verifies each claim, and averages claim-level support into a global score. Explanations use the same evidence and decisions. We train Qwen3.5-based 4B and 9B models on 100K samples with multi-task SFT, counterfactual refinement, and evidence-aware GDPO. Across eight benchmarks, VisExMEM-9B achieves the highest descriptive composite among open-source evaluators in our comparison, exceeding VQAScore by 11.7 points while remaining competitive with GPT-5.6 Sol. We also introduce AGITA-Bench, containing 600 human-annotated image-text pairs and 8.7K atomic claims for global and claim-level evaluation. For untuned Qwen3.5 and GPT-5.6 Sol controls, decomposed prompting raises the same composite by 3.6-5.1 points relative to holistic prompting. Human evaluation shows that VisExMEM explanations outperform prior explainable metrics and approach GPT-5.6 Sol.

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.

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.

Captions serve as a primary supervision signal for both multimodal understanding and text-to-image generation. However, previous evaluations treat the caption quality as a single scalar objective, which conflates two distinct properties: (1) how much visual information a caption covers and (2) how reliably the image supports its stated claims. To this end, we design a decoupled caption evaluation benchmark, CAPEval (Coverage And Precision Evaluation), with human-written ground-truth captions and human-verified atomic checklist items. Specifically, CAPEval decomposes caption quality into Coverage and Precision. The former quantifies how thoroughly a caption covers ground-truth factual content, while the latter reflects the factual correctness rate of all claims expressed in the caption. We select 10 captioners and further conduct controlled downstream end-to-end experiments with them from four model families, where the caption source is the only variable. Empirically, we find a consistent task-dependent dissociation: Coverage serves as the stronger correlate for understanding performance, whereas Precision acts as the dominant predictor for generation performance. This decoupled evaluation paradigm not only delivers a more fine-grained diagnosis of caption quality, but also offers actionable guidance for selecting and optimizing captioners tailored to different downstream tasks.

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.

Automatic evaluation of image and video captioning is essential for benchmarking multimodal systems, although standard evaluation metrics show limited alignment with human judgments. Recent approaches using large language models (LLMs), commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-Judge, have improved alignment with human judgments but still suffer from a mismatch between large-vocabulary language modeling and evaluation over a small label set. To address this, we propose Rigel, an automatic evaluation metric for image and video captioning, based on self-distilled score adaptation. The metric employs an evaluation-specific scoring head distilled from a frozen LLM, which captures judgment signals in a task-aligned space without relying on large-vocabulary token sets. We then refine the LLM backbone with human judgment data. To train Rigel, we constructed the Vid-Lepus dataset, which contains 3,338 video clips, 33,380 reference captions, and 5,637 candidate captions. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that Rigel outperforms state-of-the-art metrics, achieving over 10-point improvements on ActivityNet-Fact in the reference-free setting.

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.

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.

The hubness problem, in which hub embeddings are close to many unrelated examples, occurs often in high-dimensional embedding spaces and may pose a practical threat for purposes such as information retrieval and automatic evaluation metrics. In particular, since cross-modal similarity between text and images cannot be calculated by direct comparisons, such as string matching, cross-modal encoders that project different modalities into a shared space are helpful for various cross-modal applications, and thus, the existence of hubs may pose practical threats. To reveal the vulnerabilities of cross-modal encoders, we propose a method for identifying the hub embedding and its corresponding hub text. Experiments on image captioning evaluation in MSCOCO and nocaps along with image-to-text retrieval tasks in MSCOCO and Flickr30k showed that our method can identify a single hub text that unreasonably achieves comparable or higher similarity scores than human-written reference captions in many images, thereby revealing the vulnerabilities in cross-modal encoders.

Recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have greatly improved image understanding and captioning capabilities. However, existing image captioning benchmarks typically suffer from limited diversity in caption length, the absence of recent advanced MLLMs, and insufficient human annotations, which potentially introduces bias and limits the ability to comprehensively assess the performance of modern MLLMs. To address these limitations, we present a new large-scale image captioning benchmark, termed, ICBench, which covers 12 content categories and consists of both short and long captions generated by 10 advanced MLLMs on 2K images, resulting in 40K captions in total. We conduct extensive human subjective studies to obtain mean opinion scores (MOSs) across fine-grained evaluation dimensions, where short captions are assessed in terms of fluency, relevance, and conciseness, while long captions are evaluated based on fluency, relevance, and completeness. Furthermore, we propose an automated evaluation metric, ITIScore, based on an image-to-text-to-image framework, which measures caption quality through reconstruction consistency. Experimental results demonstrate strong alignment between our automatic metric and human judgments, as well as robust zero-shot generalization ability on other public captioning datasets. Both the dataset and model will be released upon publication.

Image captioning for Early Childhood Education (ECE) is essential for automated activity understanding and educational assessment. However, existing methods face two key challenges. First, the lack of large-scale, domain-specific datasets limits the model's ability to capture fine-grained semantic concepts unique to ECE scenarios, resulting in generic and imprecise descriptions. Second, conventional training paradigms exhibit limitations in enhancing professional object description capability, as supervised learning tends to favor high-frequency expressions, while reinforcement learning may suffer from unstable optimization on difficult samples. To address these limitations, we introduce ECAC, a large-scale benchmark for ECE daily activity image captioning, comprising 256,121 real-world images annotated with expert-level captions and fine-grained labels. ECAC is further equipped with a domain-oriented evaluation protocol, the Teaching Toy Recognition Score (TTS), to explicitly measure professional object naming accuracy. Furthermore, we propose RSRS (Reward-Conditional Switch of Reinforcement Learning and Supervised Fine-Tuning), a hybrid training framework that dynamically alternates between RL and supervised optimization. By rerouting hard samples with zero rewards to supervised fine-tuning, RSRS effectively mitigates advantage collapse and enables stable optimization for fine-grained recognition. Leveraging ECAC and RSRS, we develop KinderMM-Cap-3B, a domain-adapted multimodal large language model. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model achieves a TTS of 51.06, substantially outperforming state-of-the-art baselines while maintaining superior caption quality, highlighting its potential for specialized educational applications.

Hallucination detection in captions (HalDec) assesses a vision-language model's ability to correctly align image content with text by identifying errors in captions that misrepresent the image. Beyond evaluation, effective hallucination detection is also essential for curating high-quality image-caption pairs used to train VLMs. However, the generalizability of VLMs as hallucination detectors across different captioning models and hallucination types remains unclear due to the lack of a comprehensive benchmark. In this work, we introduce HalDec-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate hallucination detectors in a principled and interpretable manner. HalDec-Bench contains captions generated by diverse VLMs together with human annotations indicating the presence of hallucinations, detailed hallucination-type categories, and segment-level labels. The benchmark provides tasks with a wide range of difficulty levels and reveals performance differences across models that are not visible in existing multimodal reasoning or alignment benchmarks. Our analysis further uncovers two key findings. First, detectors tend to recognize sentences appearing at the beginning of a response as correct, regardless of their actual correctness. Second, our experiments suggest that dataset noise can be substantially reduced by using strong VLMs as filters while employing recent VLMs as caption generators. Our project page is available at https://dahlian00.github.io/HalDec-Bench-Page/.

Caption quality has emerged as a critical bottleneck in training high-quality text-to-image (T2I) and text-to-video (T2V) generative models. While visual language models (VLMs) are commonly deployed to generate captions from visual data, they suffer from hallucinations, poor compositional reasoning, and limited fine-grained understanding, resulting in misaligned image-caption pairs that degrade downstream model performance. This technical report introduces VIVECaption, a systematic two-sided approach to caption quality improvement. We first establish a comprehensive taxonomy of caption evaluation metrics, distinguishing between "universal" and "instance-grounded" metrics, with the ultimate goal of showcasing the use-cases and tradeoffs between different caption quality metrics. We then use this language to describe our two-sided approach to caption quality improvement: (1) a gold-standard dataset creation methodology using stratified sampling and (2) a model alignment strategy encompassing context alignment and parameter-level finetuning using SFT. We demonstrate our methodology on open-source models, focusing on structured caption formats that enable better parsing and downstream utilization. We ultimately show that using a finetuned character detection model in an image captioning pipeline significantly improves holistic image-caption alignment quality. Our work addresses the growing need for high-quality "vegan" training data in enterprise AI development, providing practical solutions for teams seeking to improve caption-image alignment without relying on potentially copyright-protected web-scraped content.

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.