Figures and their captions play a key role in scientific publications. However, despite their importance, many captions in published papers are poorly crafted, largely due to a lack of attention by paper authors. While prior AI research has explored caption generation, it has mainly focused on reader-centered use cases, where users evaluate generated captions rather than actively integrating them into their writing. This paper addresses this gap by investigating how paper authors incorporate AI-generated captions into their writing process through a user study involving 18 participants. Each participant rewrote captions for two figures from their own recently published work, using captions generated by state-of-the-art AI models as a resource. By analyzing video recordings of the writing process through interaction analysis, we observed that participants often began by copying and refining AI-generated captions. Paper writers favored longer, detail-rich captions that integrated textual and visual elements but found current AI models less effective for complex figures.

Scientific figure captioning is a complex task that requires generating contextually appropriate descriptions of visual content. However, existing methods often fall short by utilizing incomplete information, treating the task solely as either an image-to-text or text summarization problem. This limitation hinders the generation of high-quality captions that fully capture the necessary details. Moreover, existing data sourced from arXiv papers contain low-quality captions, posing significant challenges for training large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we introduce a framework called Multi-LLM Collaborative Figure Caption Generation (MLBCAP) to address these challenges by leveraging specialized LLMs for distinct sub-tasks. Our approach unfolds in three key modules: (Quality Assessment) We utilize multimodal LLMs to assess the quality of training data, enabling the filtration of low-quality captions. (Diverse Caption Generation) We then employ a strategy of fine-tuning/prompting multiple LLMs on the captioning task to generate candidate captions. (Judgment) Lastly, we prompt a prominent LLM to select the highest quality caption from the candidates, followed by refining any remaining inaccuracies. Human evaluations demonstrate that informative captions produced by our approach rank better than human-written captions, highlighting its effectiveness. Our code is available at https://github.com/teamreboott/MLBCAP

Crafting effective captions for figures is important. Readers heavily depend on these captions to grasp the figure's message. However, despite a well-developed set of AI technologies for figures and captions, these have rarely been tested for usefulness in aiding caption writing. This paper introduces SciCapenter, an interactive system that puts together cutting-edge AI technologies for scientific figure captions to aid caption composition. SciCapenter generates a variety of captions for each figure in a scholarly article, providing scores and a comprehensive checklist to assess caption quality across multiple critical aspects, such as helpfulness, OCR mention, key takeaways, and visual properties reference. Users can directly edit captions in SciCapenter, resubmit for revised evaluations, and iteratively refine them. A user study with Ph.D. students indicates that SciCapenter significantly lowers the cognitive load of caption writing. Participants' feedback further offers valuable design insights for future systems aiming to enhance caption writing.

There is growing interest in systems that generate captions for scientific figures. However, assessing these systems output poses a significant challenge. Human evaluation requires academic expertise and is costly, while automatic evaluation depends on often low-quality author-written captions. This paper investigates using large language models (LLMs) as a cost-effective, reference-free method for evaluating figure captions. We first constructed SCICAP-EVAL, a human evaluation dataset that contains human judgments for 3,600 scientific figure captions, both original and machine-made, for 600 arXiv figures. We then prompted LLMs like GPT-4 and GPT-3 to score (1-6) each caption based on its potential to aid reader understanding, given relevant context such as figure-mentioning paragraphs. Results show that GPT-4, used as a zero-shot evaluator, outperformed all other models and even surpassed assessments made by Computer Science and Informatics undergraduates, achieving a Kendall correlation score of 0.401 with Ph.D. students rankings

Good figure captions help paper readers understand complex scientific figures. Unfortunately, even published papers often have poorly written captions. Automatic caption generation could aid paper writers by providing good starting captions that can be refined for better quality. Prior work often treated figure caption generation as a vision-to-language task. In this paper, we show that it can be more effectively tackled as a text summarization task in scientific documents. We fine-tuned PEGASUS, a pre-trained abstractive summarization model, to specifically summarize figure-referencing paragraphs (e.g., "Figure 3 shows...") into figure captions. Experiments on large-scale arXiv figures show that our method outperforms prior vision methods in both automatic and human evaluations. We further conducted an in-depth investigation focused on two key challenges: (i) the common presence of low-quality author-written captions and (ii) the lack of clear standards for good captions. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/Crowd-AI-Lab/Generating-Figure-Captions-as-a-Text-Summarization-Task.

Community-based Question Answering (CQA), which allows users to acquire their desired information, has increasingly become an essential component of online services in various domains such as E-commerce, travel, and dining. However, an overwhelming number of CQA pairs makes it difficult for users without particular intent to find useful information spread over CQA pairs. To help users quickly digest the key information, we propose the novel CQA summarization task that aims to create a concise summary from CQA pairs. To this end, we first design a multi-stage data annotation process and create a benchmark dataset, CoQASUM, based on the Amazon QA corpus. We then compare a collection of extractive and abstractive summarization methods and establish a strong baseline approach DedupLED for the CQA summarization task. Our experiment further confirms two key challenges, sentence-type transfer and deduplication removal, towards the CQA summarization task. Our data and code are publicly available.

Researchers use figures to communicate rich, complex information in scientific papers. The captions of these figures are critical to conveying effective messages. However, low-quality figure captions commonly occur in scientific articles and may decrease understanding. In this paper, we propose an end-to-end neural framework to automatically generate informative, high-quality captions for scientific figures. To this end, we introduce SCICAP, a large-scale figure-caption dataset based on computer science arXiv papers published between 2010 and 2020. After pre-processing - including figure-type classification, sub-figure identification, text normalization, and caption text selection - SCICAP contained more than two million figures extracted from over 290,000 papers. We then established baseline models that caption graph plots, the dominant (19.2%) figure type. The experimental results showed both opportunities and steep challenges of generating captions for scientific figures.

We introduce the first dataset for human edits of machine-generated visual stories and explore how these collected edits may be used for the visual story post-editing task. The dataset, VIST-Edit, includes 14,905 human edited versions of 2,981 machine-generated visual stories. The stories were generated by two state-of-the-art visual storytelling models, each aligned to 5 human-edited versions. We establish baselines for the task, showing how a relatively small set of human edits can be leveraged to boost the performance of large visual storytelling models. We also discuss the weak correlation between automatic evaluation scores and human ratings, motivating the need for new automatic metrics.