Re-Thinking the Automatic Evaluation of Image-Text Alignment in Text-to-Image Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Text-to-image models often struggle to generate images that precisely match textual prompts. Prior research has extensively studied the evaluation of image-text alignment in text-to-image generation. However, existing evaluations primarily focus on agreement with human assessments, neglecting other critical properties of a trustworthy evaluation framework. In this work, we first identify two key aspects that a reliable evaluation should address. We then empirically demonstrate that current mainstream evaluation frameworks fail to fully satisfy these properties across a diverse range of metrics and models. Finally, we propose recommendations for improving image-text alignment evaluation.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2025.
Builds on
11 of 21 references.
References · 11
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
- 2023SDXL: Improving Latent Diffusion Models for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 4,356
- 2024Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 4,181
- 2021CLIPScore: A Reference-free Evaluation Metric for Image Captioningcited by 2,424
- 2023GenEval: An Object-Focused Framework for Evaluating Text-to-Image Alignmentcited by 972
- 2024Evaluating Text-to-Visual Generation with Image-to-Text Generationcited by 474
- 2023TIFA: Accurate and Interpretable Text-to-Image Faithfulness Evaluation with Question Answeringcited by 428
- 2023What You See is What You Read? Improving Text-Image Alignment Evaluationcited by 108
- 2024ConceptMix: A Compositional Image Generation Benchmark with Controllable Difficultycited by 61
- 2024Revisiting Text-to-Image Evaluation with Gecko: On Metrics, Prompts, and Human Ratingscited by 44
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.