FCCR: Fine-grained cultural image captioning via knowledge-driven self-refinement


Abstract

Despite the remarkable progress of Vision-Language Models (VLMs), existing image captioning systems still struggle to accurately recognize and describe fine-grained cultural elements. These limitations primarily stem from the lack of culturally diverse training data and the absence of structured cultural knowledge. To address these challenges, we propose FCCR (Fine-Grained Cultural Image Captioning via Knowledge-Driven Self-Refinement), a novel framework that iteratively refines captions using structured cultural knowledge to generate culturally precise and expressive descriptions. Central to FCCR is a self-refinement mechanism guided by a scoring function that extends beyond conventional natural language feedback. By leveraging structured and fine-grained cultural data, the model produces semantically rich feedback and performs multi-step refinement. To facilitate this process, we introduce FACA-1K (Fine-grained Attributes for Cultural Architecture), a curated dataset consisting of 1,000 high-resolution images annotated with expert-level architectural attributes. Furthermore, we develop a custom scoring function to quantitatively assess the cultural appropriateness of generated captions, along with a new metric—Keyword Awareness Rate (KAR)—which measures the incorporation of culturally specific terminology. Experimental results demonstrate that FCCR significantly outperforms baseline models in both Cultural Awareness Score (CAS) and KAR, generating captions that are richer and more culturally accurate. This study lays a solid foundation for culturally aware captioning systems that can capture and preserve fine-grained cultural contexts.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].