Browse State-of-the-Art › Image-to-Text Retrieval

Image-to-Text Retrieval

37 papers with code · 8 benchmarks · 8 datasets archive 2025-07-28

Natural Language Processing

Image-text retrieval is the process of retrieving relevant images based on textual descriptions or finding corresponding textual descriptions for a given image. This task is interdisciplinary, combining techniques from computer vision, and natural language processing. The primary challenge lies in bridging the semantic gap — the difference between how visual data is represented in images and how humans describe that information using language. To address this, many methods focus on learning a shared embedding space where both images and text can be represented in a comparable way, allowing their similarities to be measured and facilitating more accurate retrieval.

Source: Extending CLIP for Category-to-Image Retrieval in E-commerce

Description from the archive archive 2025-07-28.

Benchmarks archive 2025-07-28

8 leaderboard tables shown for this task, 8 with rows (a “benchmark” on this site is a table with at least one row, as on /sota), ordered by row count. “Best model” is the first row in the archive's own order at snapshot; nothing is re-ranked here and metric direction is not recorded in the archive. PwC's Trend sparklines are not in the archive, so that column is omitted.

DatasetBest model (first row in archive order)PaperCodeSyntologyCompare
Flickr30k (11 rows) InternVL-G-FT (finetuned, w/o ranking) InternVL: Scaling up Vision Foundation Models and Aligning for... code Syntology ran 2 of 2 samples · 0 unverified Compare
COCO (Common Objects in Context) (9 rows) BLIP-2 (ViT-G, fine-tuned) BLIP-2: Bootstrapping Language-Image Pre-training with Frozen... code Syntology ran 4 of 8 samples · 4 unverified Compare
WHOOPS! (7 rows) BLIP2 FlanT5-XXL (Text-only FT) Breaking Common Sense: WHOOPS! A Vision-and-Language Benchmark of... — — Compare
AIC-ICC (2 rows) ERNIE-ViL2.0 ERNIE-ViL 2.0: Multi-view Contrastive Learning for Image-Text Pre-training code — Compare
COCO (1 row) SigLIP (ViT-L, zero-shot) Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Training code Syntology ran 12 of 29 samples · 17 unverified Compare
FETA Car-Manuals (1 row) FETA's CLIP-MIL (Many-Shot Image-to-text) FETA: Towards Specializing Foundation Models for Expert Task Applications code — Compare
RSICD (1 row) GeoRSCLIP-FT RS5M and GeoRSCLIP: A Large Scale Vision-Language Dataset and A... code Syntology ran 0 of 7 samples · 7 unverified Compare
RUC-CAS-WenLan (1 row) CMCL WenLan: Bridging Vision and Language by Large-Scale Multi-Modal... code — Compare

Syntology column: samples harvested from the paper's repositories and executed on synthesized fixtures; “ran” is not a correctness claim and does not order the table. A dash means no Syntology record for that paper, not a recorded non-run. Read from the graph 2026-09-24.

Libraries

Not in the archive: the export carries no per-task library table, so there is nothing to show at snapshot 2025-07-28.

Datasets archive 2025-07-28

8 datasets whose archive record lists this task, ordered by the archive's paper count.

Subtasks archive 2025-07-28

No subtask under this task in the archive's task tree.

Most implemented papers archive 2025-07-28

30 shown of 37 papers with code (59 tagged with this task in all), ordered by repositories listed in the archive, not by stars (the archive holds no stars, so PwC's “Social” and “Latest” sorts cannot be reproduced). Papers without a page here are shown as plain text.

Syntology lines on 18 of the papers shown; no Syntology record for the others (a paper without an arXiv id cannot be joined to the graph, and absence from the graph layer is not a recorded non-run). “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized fixture, not that the paper's result was reproduced. Read from the graph 2026-09-24.

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