mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

An Examination of the Robustness of Reference-Free Image Captioning Evaluation Metrics

arXiv 2305.14998 ↗First posted 24 May 2023cs.CL cs.AI cs.CVcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recently, reference-free metrics such as CLIPScore (Hessel et al., 2021), UMIC (Lee et al., 2021), and PAC-S (Sarto et al., 2023) have been proposed for automatic reference-free evaluation of image captions. Our focus lies in evaluating the robustness of these metrics in scenarios that require distinguishing between two captions with high lexical overlap but very different meanings. Our findings reveal that despite their high correlation with human judgments, CLIPScore, UMIC, and PAC-S struggle to identify fine-grained errors. While all metrics exhibit strong sensitivity to visual grounding errors, their sensitivity to caption implausibility errors is limited. Furthermore, we found that all metrics are sensitive to variations in the size of image-relevant objects mentioned in the caption, while CLIPScore and PAC-S are also sensitive to the number of mentions of image-relevant objects in the caption. Regarding linguistic aspects of a caption, all metrics show weak comprehension of negation, and CLIPScore and PAC-S are insensitive to the structure of the caption to a great extent. We hope our findings will guide further improvements in reference-free evaluation of image captioning.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2023.

Builds on

25 of 42 references.

References · 25

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  2. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
  3. 2016Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,516
  4. 2015VQA: Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,506
  5. 2021CLIPScore: A Reference-free Evaluation Metric for Image Captioningcited by 2,424
  6. 2014CIDEr: Consensus-based Image Description Evaluationcited by 2,046
  7. 2021Align before Fuse: Vision and Language Representation Learning with Momentum Distillationcited by 1,619
  8. 2015Microsoft COCO Captions: Data Collection and Evaluation Servercited by 1,462
  9. 2014Deep Visual-Semantic Alignments for Generating Image Descriptionscited by 968
  10. 2020Object-Centric Learning with Slot Attentioncited by 876
  11. 2018Object Hallucination in Image Captioningcited by 669
  12. 2022When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it?cited by 610
13 more
  1. 2022Winoground: Probing Vision and Language Models for Visio-Linguistic Compositionalitycited by 529
  2. 2019MONet: Unsupervised Scene Decomposition and Representationcited by 392
  3. 2019Multi-Object Representation Learning with Iterative Variational Inferencecited by 360
  4. 2022CREPE: Can Vision-Language Foundation Models Reason Compositionally?cited by 181
  5. 2021VALSE: A Task-Independent Benchmark for Vision and Language Models Centered on Linguistic Phenomenacited by 135
  6. 2017FOIL it! Find One mismatch between Image and Language captioncited by 95
  7. 2017An Analysis of Visual Question Answering Algorithmscited by 90
  8. 2023Positive-Augmented Contrastive Learning for Image and Video Captioning Evaluationcited by 78
  9. 2021UMIC: An Unreferenced Metric for Image Captioning via Contrastive Learningcited by 37
  10. 2023InfoMetIC: An Informative Metric for Reference-free Image Caption Evaluationcited by 25
  11. 2022Reassessing Evaluation Practices in Visual Question Answering: A Case Study on Out-of-Distribution Generalizationcited by 20
  12. 2021SMURF: SeMantic and linguistic UndeRstanding Fusion for Caption Evaluation via Typicality Analysiscited by 18
  13. 2023Weakly-Supervised Learning of Visual Relations in Multimodal Pretrainingcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 5; 2026: 2.

11 papers.