mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Transparent Human Evaluation for Image Captioning

arXiv 2111.08940 ↗First posted 17 Nov 2021cs.CL cs.CVcited by 40

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We establish THumB, a rubric-based human evaluation protocol for image captioning models. Our scoring rubrics and their definitions are carefully developed based on machine- and human-generated captions on the MSCOCO dataset. Each caption is evaluated along two main dimensions in a tradeoff (precision and recall) as well as other aspects that measure the text quality (fluency, conciseness, and inclusive language). Our evaluations demonstrate several critical problems of the current evaluation practice. Human-generated captions show substantially higher quality than machine-generated ones, especially in coverage of salient information (i.e., recall), while most automatic metrics say the opposite. Our rubric-based results reveal that CLIPScore, a recent metric that uses image features, better correlates with human judgments than conventional text-only metrics because it is more sensitive to recall. We hope that this work will promote a more transparent evaluation protocol for image captioning and its automatic metrics.

Key facts. Cited by 40 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 34 of its 89 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Nov 2021.

Builds on

34 of 89 references.

References · 34

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  4. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  5. 2015Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networkscited by 9,617
  6. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  7. 2016Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotationscited by 2,646
  8. 2016Aggregated Residual Transformations for Deep Neural Networkscited by 2,540
  9. 2021CLIPScore: A Reference-free Evaluation Metric for Image Captioningcited by 2,388
  10. 2019HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processingcited by 2,201
  11. 2014CIDEr: Consensus-based Image Description Evaluationcited by 2,027
  12. 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,790
22 more
  1. 2015Microsoft COCO Captions: Data Collection and Evaluation Servercited by 1,447
  2. 2017Bottom-Up and Top-Down Attention for Image Captioning and Visual Question Answeringcited by 1,310
  3. 2020Oscar: Object-Semantics Aligned Pre-training for Vision-Language Taskscited by 1,213
  4. 2014Deep Visual-Semantic Alignments for Generating Image Descriptionscited by 966
  5. 2016SPICE: Semantic Propositional Image Caption Evaluationcited by 820
  6. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
  7. 2018Object Hallucination in Image Captioningcited by 661
  8. 2019Unified Vision-Language Pre-Training for Image Captioning and VQAcited by 494
  9. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 333
  10. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
  11. 2019Neural Text Summarization: A Critical Evaluationcited by 189
  12. 2021VinVL: Revisiting Visual Representations in Vision-Language Modelscited by 109
  13. 2019Good News, Everyone! Context driven entity-aware captioning for news imagescited by 66
  14. 2015Seeing through the Human Reporting Bias: Visual Classifiers from Noisy Human-Centric Labelscited by 64
  15. 2018Engaging Image Captioning Via Personalitycited by 51
  16. 2016Re-evaluating Automatic Metrics for Image Captioningcited by 45
  17. 2019On The Evaluation of Machine Translation Systems Trained With Back-Translationcited by 40
  18. 2015From Images to Sentences through Scene Description Graphs using Commonsense Reasoning and Knowledgecited by 35
  19. 2020Towards Unique and Informative Captioning of Imagescited by 25
  20. 2021SMURF: SeMantic and linguistic UndeRstanding Fusion for Caption Evaluation via Typicality Analysiscited by 18
  21. 2017Cross-linguistic differences and similarities in image descriptionscited by 12
  22. 2017Grammatical Error Correction with Neural Reinforcement Learningcited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 8; 2023: 11; 2024: 9; 2025: 7; 2026: 4.

40 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023TIFA: Accurate and Interpretable Text-to-Image Faithfulness Evaluation with Question Answeringcited by 416
  2. 2022One Embedder, Any Task: Instruction-Finetuned Text Embeddingscited by 329
  3. 2024DOCCI: Descriptions of Connected and Contrasting Imagescited by 130
  4. 2023What You See is What You Read? Improving Text-Image Alignment Evaluationcited by 105
  5. 2023Evaluating GPT-4 and ChatGPT on Japanese Medical Licensing Examinationscited by 63
  6. 2022On the Blind Spots of Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Text Generationcited by 48
  7. 2025CapArena: Benchmarking and Analyzing Detailed Image Captioning in the LLM Eracited by 40
  8. 2021Bidimensional Leaderboards: Generate and Evaluate Language Hand in Handcited by 32
  9. 2023InfoMetIC: An Informative Metric for Reference-free Image Caption Evaluationcited by 25
  10. 2022Towards Automated Document Revision: Grammatical Error Correction, Fluency Edits, and Beyondcited by 20
  11. 2023IC3: Image Captioning by Committee Consensuscited by 20
  12. 2022Context Matters for Image Descriptions for Accessibility: Challenges for Referenceless Evaluation Metricscited by 18
28 more
  1. 2023Guiding Image Captioning Models Toward More Specific Captionscited by 17
  2. 2024MetaMetrics: Calibrating Metrics For Generation Tasks Using Human Preferencescited by 15
  3. 2023Test-Time Distribution Normalization for Contrastively Learned Vision-language Modelscited by 14
  4. 2024GPTs Are Multilingual Annotators for Sequence Generation Taskscited by 11
  5. 2022A Call for Clarity in Beam Search: How It Works and When It Stopscited by 10
  6. 2023Dealing with Semantic Underspecification in Multimodal NLPcited by 9
  7. 2024Vision Language Model-based Caption Evaluation Method Leveraging Visual Context Extractioncited by 7
  8. 2025VELA: An LLM-Hybrid-as-a-Judge Approach for Evaluating Long Image Captionscited by 5
  9. 2022Twist Decoding: Diverse Generators Guide Each Othercited by 4
  10. 2022Switching to Discriminative Image Captioning by Relieving a Bottleneck of Reinforcement Learningcited by 4
  11. 2024Better than Random: Reliable NLG Human Evaluation with Constrained Active Samplingcited by 4
  12. 2025Do Large Multimodal Models Solve Caption Generation for Scientific Figures? Lessons Learned from SciCap Challenge 2023cited by 4
  13. 2023ContextRef: Evaluating Referenceless Metrics For Image Description Generationcited by 3
  14. 2025T2I-FineEval: Fine-Grained Compositional Metric for Text-to-Image Evaluationcited by 3
  15. 2026On the Wings of Imagination: Conflicting Script-based Multi-role Framework for Humor Caption Generationcited by 3
  16. 2026QEVA: A Reference-Free Evaluation Metric for Narrative Video Summarization with Multimodal Question Answeringcited by 3
  17. 2024T5Score: A Methodology for Automatically Assessing the Quality of LLM Generated Multi-Document Topic Setscited by 2
  18. 2024Multi-modal, Multi-task, Multi-criteria Automatic Evaluation with Vision Language Modelscited by 2
  19. 2025TabXEval: Why this is a Bad Table? An eXhaustive Rubric for Table Evaluationcited by 2
  20. 2025LLM-Free Image Captioning Evaluation in Reference-Flexible Settingscited by 2
  21. 2024Perception of Visual Content: Differences Between Humans and Foundation Modelscited by 1
  22. 2025PoSh: Using Scene Graphs To Guide LLMs-as-a-Judge For Detailed Image Descriptionscited by 1
  23. 2026Do Image-Text Metrics Respect Semantic Invariances?cited by 1
  24. 2022Can Machines Imitate Humans? Integrative Turing-like tests for Language and Vision Demonstrate a Narrowing Gapcited by 0
  25. 2023Linear Alignment of Vision-language Models for Image Captioningcited by 0
  26. 2023Targeted Image Data Augmentation Increases Basic Skills Captioning Robustnesscited by 0
  27. 2024Surveying the Landscape of Image Captioning Evaluation: A Comprehensive Taxonomy, Trends and Metrics Analysiscited by 0
  28. 2026Rigel: Self-Distilled Score Adaptation for Image and Video Captioning Evaluationcited by 0