Papers › Modeling Image-Caption Rating from Comparative Judgments

Modeling Image-Caption Rating from Comparative Judgments

30 Jan 2026arXiv:2602.00381added by Syntology

Kezia Minni, Qiang Zhang, Monoshiz Mahbub Khan, Zhe Yu

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Image caption rating is becoming increasingly important because computer-generated captions are used extensively for descriptive annotation. However, rating the accuracy of captions in describing images is time-consuming and subjective in nature. In contrast, it is often easier for people to compare (between two pairs) which image-caption pair better matches each other. In this study, we propose a machine learning framework that models such comparative judgments instead of direct ratings. The model can then be applied to rank unseen image-caption pairs in the same way as a regression model trained on direct ratings. Inspired by a state-of-the-art regression approach, we extracted visual and text features using a pre-trained ViLBERT model and tweaked the learning parameters of the baseline model to improve the model performance. This new regression model (with Kendall's τ_c=0.812) outperformed the baseline model (with Kendall's τ_c=0.758) on the VICR dataset. The same model structure was applied to the comparative learning framework. Trained on comparative judgments (image-caption pair A better matches each other than image-caption pair B), the comparative learning model achieved a performance similar (with Kendall's τ_c=0.804) to that of the regression model. In addition, a small-scale human subject study was conducted to compare the cost and quality of direct ratings, pairwise comparisons, and same-image comparisons. The results showed that comparative judgments yielded faster results and greater agreement among human annotators than direct ratings. These results suggest that collecting comparative judgments instead of direct ratings as training data labels is promising for lower annotation costs and greater consistency. The model trained on such comparative judgments can perform as well as the model trained on direct ratings.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

13 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 13 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 13 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from hil-se/comparative_image_caption. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2602.00381, was issued in February 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections