Search

Automated generation of image captions is a demanding AI crisis as it necessitates the exploitation of numerous methods from diverse computer science fields. Deep learning (DL) approaches have revealed marvelous results in a lot of diverse appliances. On the other hand, data augmentation in DL that imitates the quantity and the variety of training data without the need of gathering additional data is a hopeful area in machine learning (ML). Producing textual descriptions for a specified image is a demanding task using the computer. This survey makes a critical analysis of about 65 papers regarding image captioning. More particularly, varied performance measures that are contributed in diverse articles are analyzed. In addition, a comprehensive study is made regarding the maximal performances and varied features deployed in each work. Moreover, chronological analysis and dataset analysis are done and finally, the survey extends with the determination of varied research challenges, which might be productive for the analysts to endorse enhanced upcoming works on image captioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large-scale benchmark datasets are crucial in advancing research within the computer science communities. They enable the development of more sophisticated AI models and serve as "golden" benchmarks for evaluating their performance. Thus, ensuring the quality of these datasets is of utmost importance for academic research and the progress of AI systems. For the emerging vision-language tasks, some datasets have been created and frequently used, such as Flickr30k, COCO, and NoCaps, which typically contain a large number of images paired with their ground-truth textual descriptions. In this paper, an automatic method is proposed to assess the quality of large-scale benchmark datasets designed for vision-language tasks. In particular, a new cross-modal matching model is developed, which is capable of automatically scoring the textual descriptions of visual images. Subsequently, this model is employed to evaluate the quality of vision-language datasets by automatically assigning a score to each 'ground-truth' description for every image picture. With a good agreement between manual and automated scoring results on the datasets, our findings reveal significant disparities in the quality of the ground-truth descriptions included in the benchmark datasets. Even more surprising, it is evident that a small portion of the descriptions are unsuitable for serving as reliable ground-truth references. These discoveries emphasize the need for careful utilization of these publicly accessible benchmark databases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]