Cobra Effect in Reference-Free Image Captioning Metrics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11572v1
• Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 12:36:23 GMT
• Title: Cobra Effect in Reference-Free Image Captioning Metrics
• Authors: Zheng Ma, Changxin Wang, Yawen Ouyang, Fei Zhao, Jianbing Zhang, Shujian Huang, Jiajun Chen
• Abstract summary: A proliferation of reference-free methods, leveraging visual-language pre-trained models (VLMs), has emerged. In this paper, we study if there are any deficiencies in reference-free metrics. We employ GPT-4V as an evaluative tool to assess generated sentences and the result reveals that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance.
• Score: 58.438648377314436
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating the compatibility between textual descriptions and corresponding images represents a core endeavor within multi-modal research. In recent years, a proliferation of reference-free methods, leveraging visual-language pre-trained models (VLMs), has emerged. Empirical evidence has substantiated that these innovative approaches exhibit a higher correlation with human judgment, marking a significant advancement in the field. However, does a higher correlation with human evaluations alone sufficiently denote the complete of a metric? In response to this question, in this paper, we study if there are any deficiencies in reference-free metrics. Specifically, inspired by the Cobra Effect, we utilize metric scores as rewards to direct the captioning model toward generating descriptions that closely align with the metric's criteria. If a certain metric has flaws, it will be exploited by the model and reflected in the generated sentences. Our findings reveal that descriptions guided by these metrics contain significant flaws, e.g. incoherent statements and excessive repetition. Subsequently, we propose a novel method termed Self-Improving to rectify the identified shortcomings within these metrics. We employ GPT-4V as an evaluative tool to assess generated sentences and the result reveals that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance. In addition, we also introduce a challenging evaluation benchmark called Flaws Caption to evaluate reference-free image captioning metrics comprehensively. Our code is available at https://github.com/aaronma2020/robust_captioning_metric

Related papers

• BRIDGE: Bridging Gaps in Image Captioning Evaluation with Stronger Visual Cues [47.213906345208315]
  We propose BRIDGE, a new learnable and reference-free image captioning metric. Our proposal achieves state-of-the-art results compared to existing reference-free evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T18:00:17Z)
• HICEScore: A Hierarchical Metric for Image Captioning Evaluation [10.88292081473071]
  We propose a novel reference-free metric for image captioning evaluation, dubbed Hierarchical Image Captioning Evaluation Score (HICE-S) By detecting local visual regions and textual phrases, HICE-S builds an interpretable hierarchical scoring mechanism. Our proposed metric achieves the SOTA performance on several benchmarks, outperforming existing reference-free metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-26T08:24:30Z)
• Gender Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Image Captioning [87.15170977240643]
  We conduct a systematic study of gender biases in model-based evaluation metrics for image captioning tasks. We demonstrate the negative consequences of using these biased metrics, including the inability to differentiate between biased and unbiased generations. We present a simple and effective way to mitigate the metric bias without hurting the correlations with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T04:27:40Z)
• On the Blind Spots of Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Text Generation [79.01422521024834]
  We explore a useful but often neglected methodology for robustness analysis of text generation evaluation metrics. We design and synthesize a wide range of potential errors and check whether they result in a commensurate drop in the metric scores. Our experiments reveal interesting insensitivities, biases, or even loopholes in existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T06:24:25Z)
• SMART: Sentences as Basic Units for Text Evaluation [48.5999587529085]
  In this paper, we introduce a new metric called SMART to mitigate such limitations. We treat sentences as basic units of matching instead of tokens, and use a sentence matching function to soft-match candidate and reference sentences. Our results show that system-level correlations of our proposed metric with a model-based matching function outperforms all competing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-01T17:58:05Z)
• TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation [29.888885917330327]
  We introduce TRUE: a comprehensive study of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T10:14:35Z)
• SMURF: SeMantic and linguistic UndeRstanding Fusion for Caption Evaluation via Typicality Analysis [20.026835809227283]
  We introduce "typicality", a new formulation of evaluation rooted in information theory. We show how these decomposed dimensions of semantics and fluency provide greater system-level insight into captioner differences. Our proposed metrics along with their combination, SMURF, achieve state-of-the-art correlation with human judgment when compared with other rule-based evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T19:58:20Z)
• Evaluation Metrics for Conditional Image Generation [100.69766435176557]
  We present two new metrics for evaluating generative models in the class-conditional image generation setting. A theoretical analysis shows the motivation behind each proposed metric and links the novel metrics to their unconditional counterparts. We provide an extensive empirical evaluation, comparing the metrics to their unconditional variants and to other metrics, and utilize them to analyze existing generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-26T12:15:16Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.