Surprisal reveals diversity gaps in image captioning and different scorers change the story
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
- 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
- 2025InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Modelscited by 1,769
- 2015Microsoft COCO Captions: Data Collection and Evaluation Servercited by 1,447
- 2015Flickr30k Entities: Collecting Region-to-Phrase Correspondences for Richer Image-to-Sentence Modelscited by 1,352
- 2015A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Modelscited by 1,068
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
- 2019Neural Text Generation with Unlikelihood Trainingcited by 489
- 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 415
- 2023Testing the Predictions of Surprisal Theory in 11 Languagescited by 75
12 more
- 2023Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Textcited by 62
- 2017Towards Diverse and Natural Image Descriptions via a Conditional GANcited by 59
- 2023What Comes Next? Evaluating Uncertainty in Neural Text Generators Against Human Production Variabilitycited by 51
- 2020Targeting the Benchmark: On Methodology in Current Natural Language Processing Researchcited by 44
- 2023GPT-who: An Information Density-based Machine-Generated Text Detectorcited by 38
- 2024Frequency Explains the Inverse Correlation of Large Language Models' Size, Training Data Amount, and Surprisal's Fit to Reading Timescited by 37
- 2016Automatic Description Generation from Images: A Survey of Models, Datasets, and Evaluation Measurescited by 36
- 2024Detecting Subtle Differences between Human and Model Languages Using Spectrum of Relative Likelihoodcited by 24
- 2021A surprisal--duration trade-off across and within the world's languagescited by 22
- 2022Estimating the Entropy of Linguistic Distributionscited by 11
- 2025Comparing LLM-generated and human-authored news text using formal syntactic theorycited by 11
- 2017Speaking the Same Language: Matching Machine to Human Captions by Adversarial Trainingcited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.