Rethinking Evaluation Metrics of Open-Vocabulary Segmentaion

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03352v1
• Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 18:59:01 GMT
• Title: Rethinking Evaluation Metrics of Open-Vocabulary Segmentaion
• Authors: Hao Zhou, Tiancheng Shen, Xu Yang, Hai Huang, Xiangtai Li, Lu Qi, Ming-Hsuan Yang
• Abstract summary: The evaluation process still heavily relies on closed-set metrics without considering the similarity between predicted and ground truth categories. To tackle this issue, we first survey eleven similarity measurements between two categorical words. We designed novel evaluation metrics, namely Open mIoU, Open AP, and Open PQ, tailored for three open-vocabulary segmentation tasks.
• Score: 78.76867266561537
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, we highlight a problem of evaluation metrics adopted in the open-vocabulary segmentation. That is, the evaluation process still heavily relies on closed-set metrics on zero-shot or cross-dataset pipelines without considering the similarity between predicted and ground truth categories. To tackle this issue, we first survey eleven similarity measurements between two categorical words using WordNet linguistics statistics, text embedding, and language models by comprehensive quantitative analysis and user study. Built upon those explored measurements, we designed novel evaluation metrics, namely Open mIoU, Open AP, and Open PQ, tailored for three open-vocabulary segmentation tasks. We benchmarked the proposed evaluation metrics on 12 open-vocabulary methods of three segmentation tasks. Even though the relative subjectivity of similarity distance, we demonstrate that our metrics can still well evaluate the open ability of the existing open-vocabulary segmentation methods. We hope that our work can bring with the community new thinking about how to evaluate the open ability of models. The evaluation code is released in github.

Related papers

• Annotator in the Loop: A Case Study of In-Depth Rater Engagement to Create a Bridging Benchmark Dataset [1.825224193230824]
  We describe a novel, collaborative, and iterative annotator-in-the-loop methodology for annotation. Our findings indicate that collaborative engagement with annotators can enhance annotation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-01T19:11:08Z)
• Cobra Effect in Reference-Free Image Captioning Metrics [58.438648377314436]
  A proliferation of reference-free methods, leveraging visual-language pre-trained models (VLMs), has emerged. In this paper, we study if there are any deficiencies in reference-free metrics. We employ GPT-4V as an evaluative tool to assess generated sentences and the result reveals that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T12:36:23Z)
• CEREAL: Few-Sample Clustering Evaluation [4.569028973407756]
  We focus on the underexplored problem of estimating clustering quality with limited labels. We introduce CEREAL, a comprehensive framework for few-sample clustering evaluation. Our results show that CEREAL reduces the area under the absolute error curve by up to 57% compared to the best sampling baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-30T19:52:41Z)
• On the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Fairness Evaluation Metrics for Contextualized Language Representations [74.70957445600936]
  Multiple metrics have been introduced to measure fairness in various natural language processing tasks. These metrics can be roughly categorized into two categories: 1) emphextrinsic metrics for evaluating fairness in downstream applications and 2) emphintrinsic metrics for estimating fairness in upstream language representation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-25T22:17:43Z)
• OpenMEVA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generation Metrics [53.779709191191685]
  We propose OpenMEVA, a benchmark for evaluating open-ended story generation metrics. OpenMEVA provides a comprehensive test suite to assess the capabilities of metrics. We observe that existing metrics have poor correlation with human judgments, fail to recognize discourse-level incoherence, and lack inferential knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-19T04:45:07Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)
• Extending Text Informativeness Measures to Passage Interestingness Evaluation (Language Model vs. Word Embedding) [1.2998637003026272]
  This paper defines the concept of Interestingness as a generalization of Informativeness. We then study the ability of state of the art Informativeness measures to cope with this generalization. We prove that the CLEF-INEX Tweet Contextualization 2012 Logarithm Similarity measure provides best results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-14T18:22:48Z)
• PONE: A Novel Automatic Evaluation Metric for Open-Domain Generative Dialogue Systems [48.99561874529323]
  There are three kinds of automatic methods to evaluate the open-domain generative dialogue systems. Due to the lack of systematic comparison, it is not clear which kind of metrics are more effective. We propose a novel and feasible learning-based metric that can significantly improve the correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-06T04:36:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.