179 questions
No questions match those filters.
For an image captioning model trained on hundreds of millions of noisy, web-scraped image-caption pairs, what data cleaning and decoding choices matter most, and how should you evaluate caption quality?
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansData quality problems in scraped image-caption corpora are not random noise you can average away — they’re systematic biases that a model will happily learn if you don’t filter them out. A caption-relevance filter using CLIP similarity is doing double duty: it removes obviously wrong pairs (a caption for a different image entirely) and it removes subtly weak pairs (a caption that’s technically about the image but too vague or off-topic to be a good training signal), both of which degrade output quality in ways that are hard to diagnose after the fact.
Length normalization is easy to overlook but matters just as much as correctness. If your training distribution includes many long, paragraph-style captions and your product needs short asset-name-style output, the model will produce long output regardless of prompting, because it has learned the training distribution’s style, not just its facts. Pre-summarizing captions with an LLM during data prep aligns the training signal with the deployment requirement directly, rather than trying to fix it at inference time.
On evaluation, the reason CIDEr exists at all is that generic n-gram overlap metrics reward safe, common phrasing (“a photo of a person”) over accurate, specific phrasing, which is exactly backwards for captioning quality. Multiple reference captions compound that: since there’s no single correct caption for an image, scoring against only one reference systematically penalizes correct-but-differently-phrased model output.