Evaluation in Neural Style Transfer: A Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.17109v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:45:30 GMT
• Title: Evaluation in Neural Style Transfer: A Review
• Authors: Eleftherios Ioannou and Steve Maddock
• Abstract summary: We provide an in-depth analysis of existing evaluation techniques, identify the inconsistencies and limitations of current evaluation methods, and give recommendations for standardized evaluation practices. We believe that the development of a robust evaluation framework will not only enable more meaningful and fairer comparisons but will also enhance the comprehension and interpretation of research findings in the field.
• Score: 0.7614628596146599
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The field of Neural Style Transfer (NST) has witnessed remarkable progress in the past few years, with approaches being able to synthesize artistic and photorealistic images and videos of exceptional quality. To evaluate such results, a diverse landscape of evaluation methods and metrics is used, including authors' opinions based on side-by-side comparisons, human evaluation studies that quantify the subjective judgements of participants, and a multitude of quantitative computational metrics which objectively assess the different aspects of an algorithm's performance. However, there is no consensus regarding the most suitable and effective evaluation procedure that can guarantee the reliability of the results. In this review, we provide an in-depth analysis of existing evaluation techniques, identify the inconsistencies and limitations of current evaluation methods, and give recommendations for standardized evaluation practices. We believe that the development of a robust evaluation framework will not only enable more meaningful and fairer comparisons among NST methods but will also enhance the comprehension and interpretation of research findings in the field.

Related papers

• Are we making progress in unlearning? Findings from the first NeurIPS unlearning competition [70.60872754129832]
  First NeurIPS competition on unlearning sought to stimulate the development of novel algorithms. Nearly 1,200 teams from across the world participated. We analyze top solutions and delve into discussions on benchmarking unlearning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:58:00Z)
• Hierarchical Evaluation Framework: Best Practices for Human Evaluation [17.91641890651225]
  The absence of widely accepted human evaluation metrics in NLP hampers fair comparisons among different systems and the establishment of universal assessment standards. We develop our own hierarchical evaluation framework to provide a more comprehensive representation of the NLP system's performance. In future work, we will investigate the potential time-saving benefits of our proposed framework for evaluators assessing NLP systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T09:46:02Z)
• Towards a Comprehensive Human-Centred Evaluation Framework for Explainable AI [1.7222662622390634]
  We propose to adapt the User-Centric Evaluation Framework used in recommender systems. We integrate explanation aspects, summarise explanation properties, indicate relations between them, and categorise metrics that measure these properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T09:20:16Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Better Understanding Differences in Attribution Methods via Systematic Evaluations [57.35035463793008]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We use these evaluation schemes to study strengths and shortcomings of some widely used attribution methods over a wide range of models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-21T14:24:58Z)
• On The Coherence of Quantitative Evaluation of Visual Explanations [0.7212939068975619]
  Evaluation methods have been proposed to assess the "goodness" of visual explanations. We study a subset of the ImageNet-1k validation set where we evaluate a number of different commonly-used explanation methods. Results of our study suggest that there is a lack of coherency on the grading provided by some of the considered evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T13:41:57Z)
• Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation [136.16507050034755]
  Existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale. We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units. We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T17:26:05Z)
• Towards Better Understanding Attribution Methods [77.1487219861185]
  Post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. We propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods. We also propose a post-processing smoothing step that significantly improves the performance of some attribution methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T20:50:17Z)
• Counterfactually Evaluating Explanations in Recommender Systems [14.938252589829673]
  We propose an offline evaluation method that can be computed without human involvement. We show that, compared to conventional methods, our method can produce evaluation scores more correlated with the real human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-02T18:55:29Z)
• Interpretable Off-Policy Evaluation in Reinforcement Learning by Highlighting Influential Transitions [48.91284724066349]
  Off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning offers the chance of using observational data to improve future outcomes in domains such as healthcare and education. Traditional measures such as confidence intervals may be insufficient due to noise, limited data and confounding. We develop a method that could serve as a hybrid human-AI system, to enable human experts to analyze the validity of policy evaluation estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T00:26:43Z)

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.