Evaluates the semantic alignment and factual fidelity of automatically generated scientific image captions. It probes whether dense, context-aware captions can replace visual inputs for downstream reasoning tasks and how well they capture complex scientific figures compared to raw human-written captions. Use when the user wants to benchmark on OmniScience, AI2D, MMMU, MM-MT-Bench, MSEarth, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports cross-modal relevance score.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill omniscience-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Omniscience Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-omniscience-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: omniscience-eval
description: Evaluates the semantic alignment and factual fidelity of automatically generated scientific image captions. It probes whether dense, context-aware captions can replace visual inputs for downstream reasoning tasks and how well they capture complex scientific figures compared to raw human-written captions. Use when the user wants to benchmark on OmniScience, AI2D, MMMU, MM-MT-Bench, MSEarth, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports cross-modal relevance score.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2602.13758
bibtex_key: tao2026omniscience
confidence: high
---
# omniscience-eval
> OmniScience: A Large-scale Multi-modal Dataset for Scientific Image Understanding — Tao et al. (2026) (arXiv:2602.13758, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the semantic alignment and factual fidelity of automatically generated scientific image captions. It probes whether dense, context-aware captions can replace visual inputs for downstream reasoning tasks and how well they capture complex scientific figures compared to raw human-written captions.
## Datasets
- **OmniScience** — total ?; splits: test (-1), val (5000)
- **AI2D** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MMMU** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MM-MT-Bench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MSEarth** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `cross-modal relevance score` **(primary)** — range: continuous (higher is better)
- Computed by Qwen3-VL-Reranker-8B, a single-tower cross-encoder that jointly encodes image-caption pairs and models cross-modal interactions via cross attention to yield instance-level semantic grounding scores.
- `LLM-as-a-Judge score` — range: [1, 5]
- Mean of four 1–5 scale dimensions: Language Fluency, Information Consistency, Key Information Accuracy, and Detail Level. Scores from Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Thinking and Seed-1.5VL are averaged.
- `Caption QA accuracy` — range: [0, 1]
- Accuracy of GPT-4o-mini answering VQA questions when the visual placeholder is replaced by a generated caption. Evaluated on AI2D, MMMU, MM-MT-Bench, and MSEarth.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Image + caption (for reranker); generated caption + reference caption + image (for LLM-Judge); question + generated caption (for Caption QA proxy task).
**Output**: Scalar relevance score (reranker); 1–5 score per dimension (LLM-Judge); correct/incorrect answer label (Caption QA).
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_cross_modal_relevance_score(images, captions):
scores = []
for img, cap in zip(images, captions):
score = reranker_model.encode_cross_modal(img, cap)
scores.append(score)
return mean(scores)
def compute_llm_judge_score(captions, references, images):
all_scores = []
for cap, ref, img in zip(captions, references, images):
scores = [judge.evaluate(cap, ref, img) for judge in [judge1, judge2]]
all_scores.append(mean(scores))
return mean(all_scores)
def compute_caption_qa_accuracy(questions, captions, gold_answers):
correct = 0
for q, cap, gold in zip(questions, captions, gold_answers):
pred = reasoning_engine.answer(q, caption=cap)
if pred == gold: correct += 1
return correct / len(questions)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Using dual-tower embedding models (e.g., CLIP) instead of the specified cross-encoder reranker, which fails to capture fine-grained scientific figure details and yields less precise scores.
- Evaluating raw captions without article context, causing referential ambiguity (e.g., 'as shown in the left panel') and artificially low alignment scores compared to self-contained recaptioned text.
- Treating LLM-as-a-Judge scores as absolute ground truth without acknowledging they are relative rankings validated only on a 300-sample human-annotated subset (Kappa 0.831).
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We employ Qwen3-VL-Reranker-8B to compute fine-grained relevance scores between images and captions. Compared to embedding based dual-tower similarity models, the reranker adopts a single-tower cross-encoder that jointly encodes image–caption pairs and explicitly models cross-modal interactions using cross attention, yielding more precise instance-level semantic grounding.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{tao2026omniscience,
title={OmniScience: A Large-scale Multi-modal Dataset for Scientific Image Understanding},
author={Tao et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2602.13758}
}
```
- arXiv: 2602.13758
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!