The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Framing Image Description as a Ranking Task: Data, Models and Evaluation Metrics
Open accessAbstract
The ability to associate images with natural language sentences that describe what is depicted in them is a hallmark of image understanding, and a prerequisite for applications such as sentence-based image search. In analogy to image search, we propose to frame sentence-based image annotation as the task of ranking a given pool of captions. We introduce a new benchmark collection for sentence-based image description and search, consisting of 8,000 images that are each paired with five different captions which provide clear descriptions of the salient entities and events. We introduce a number of systems that perform quite well on this task, even though they are only based on features that can be obtained with minimal supervision. Our results clearly indicate the importance of training on multiple captions per image, and of capturing syntactic (word order-based) and semantic features of these captions. We also perform an in-depth comparison of human and automatic evaluation metrics for this task, and propose strategies for collecting human judgments cheaply and on a very large scale, allowing us to augment our collection with additional relevance judgments of which captions describe which image. Our analysis shows that metrics that consider the ranked list of results for each query image or sentence are significantly more robust than metrics that are based on a single response per query. Moreover, our study suggests that the evaluation of ranking-based image description systems may be fully automated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Lowe, D. G. (2004) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1023/b:visi.0000029664.99615.94 · Cited by 55,589
Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context
Lin, T.-Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Dollár, P., & Zitnick, C. L. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10602-1_48 · Cited by 45,460
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Shelley, M., & Krippendorff, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288384 · Cited by 24,312
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation
Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., & Zhu, W.-J. (2001) · Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL '02 · doi:10.3115/1073083.1073135 · Cited by 21,344
Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology
Krippendorff, K. (2019) · doi:10.4135/9781071878781 · Cited by 15,448
Introduction to information retrieval
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-2715 · Cited by 12,278
WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database
Kilgarriff, A., & Fellbaum, C. (2000) · Language · doi:10.2307/417141 · Cited by 11,464
Cited by
Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision
Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00020 · Cited by 15,293
Show, Attend and Tell: Neural Image Caption Generation with Visual Attention
Xu, K., Ba, J., Kiros, R., Cho, K., Courville, A., Salakhutdinov, R., Zemel, R., & Bengio, Y. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.03044 · Cited by 8,248
Show and tell: A neural image caption generator
Vinyals, O., Toshev, A., Bengio, S., & Erhan, D. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298935 · Cited by 6,318
Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotations
Krishna, R., Zhu, Y., Groth, O., Johnson, J., Hata, K., Kravitz, J., Chen, S., Kalantidis, Y., Li, L.-J., Shamma, D. A., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-016-0981-7 · Cited by 5,107
Long-term recurrent convolutional networks for visual recognition and description
Donahue, J., Hendricks, L. A., Guadarrama, S., Rohrbach, M., Venugopalan, S., Darrell, T., & Saenko, K. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298878 · Cited by 5,228
Metadata
- Authors
- Hodosh, M., Young, P., & Hockenmaier, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
- Publisher
- AI Access Foundation
- Published
- 2013-08-30
- Volume
- 47
- Pages
- 853-899
- ISSN
- 1076-9757 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W68733909
- Cited by
- 1,314
- References
- 75
- FWCI
- 74.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Framing Image Description as a Ranking Task: Data, Models and Evaluation Metrics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1613/jair.3994
- The paper
- Hodosh, M., Young, P., & Hockenmaier, J. (2013). Framing Image Description as a Ranking Task: Data, Models and Evaluation Metrics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.3994
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
