mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Surprisal reveals diversity gaps in image captioning and different scorers change the story

arXiv 2511.04754 ↗First posted 6 Nov 2025cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We quantify linguistic diversity in image captioning with surprisal variance - the spread of token-level negative log-probabilities within a caption set. On the MSCOCO test set, we compare five state-of-the-art vision-and-language LLMs, decoded with greedy and nucleus sampling, to human captions. Measured with a caption-trained n-gram LM, humans display roughly twice the surprisal variance of models, but rescoring the same captions with a general-language model reverses the pattern. Our analysis introduces the surprisal-based diversity metric for image captioning. We show that relying on a single scorer can completely invert conclusions, thus, robust diversity evaluation must report surprisal under several scorers.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Nov 2025.

Builds on

24 of 52 references.

References · 24

  1. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  2. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
  3. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  4. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  5. 2025InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Modelscited by 1,769
  6. 2015Microsoft COCO Captions: Data Collection and Evaluation Servercited by 1,447
  7. 2015Flickr30k Entities: Collecting Region-to-Phrase Correspondences for Richer Image-to-Sentence Modelscited by 1,352
  8. 2015A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Modelscited by 1,068
  9. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  10. 2019Neural Text Generation with Unlikelihood Trainingcited by 489
  11. 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 415
  12. 2023Testing the Predictions of Surprisal Theory in 11 Languagescited by 75
12 more
  1. 2023Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Textcited by 62
  2. 2017Towards Diverse and Natural Image Descriptions via a Conditional GANcited by 59
  3. 2023What Comes Next? Evaluating Uncertainty in Neural Text Generators Against Human Production Variabilitycited by 51
  4. 2020Targeting the Benchmark: On Methodology in Current Natural Language Processing Researchcited by 44
  5. 2023GPT-who: An Information Density-based Machine-Generated Text Detectorcited by 38
  6. 2024Frequency Explains the Inverse Correlation of Large Language Models' Size, Training Data Amount, and Surprisal's Fit to Reading Timescited by 37
  7. 2016Automatic Description Generation from Images: A Survey of Models, Datasets, and Evaluation Measurescited by 36
  8. 2024Detecting Subtle Differences between Human and Model Languages Using Spectrum of Relative Likelihoodcited by 24
  9. 2021A surprisal--duration trade-off across and within the world's languagescited by 22
  10. 2022Estimating the Entropy of Linguistic Distributionscited by 11
  11. 2025Comparing LLM-generated and human-authored news text using formal syntactic theorycited by 11
  12. 2017Speaking the Same Language: Matching Machine to Human Captions by Adversarial Trainingcited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.