A Closer Look at Classification Evaluation Metrics and a Critical Reflection of Common Evaluation Practice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16958v2
• Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 08:53:09 GMT
• Title: A Closer Look at Classification Evaluation Metrics and a Critical Reflection of Common Evaluation Practice
• Authors: Juri Opitz,
• Abstract summary: Classification systems are evaluated in a countless number of papers. However, we find that evaluation practice is often nebulous. Many works use so-called'macro' metrics to rank systems but do not clearly specify what they would expect from such a metric.
• Score: 6.091702876917282
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Classification systems are evaluated in a countless number of papers. However, we find that evaluation practice is often nebulous. Frequently, metrics are selected without arguments, and blurry terminology invites misconceptions. For instance, many works use so-called 'macro' metrics to rank systems (e.g., 'macro F1') but do not clearly specify what they would expect from such a `macro' metric. This is problematic, since picking a metric can affect research findings, and thus any clarity in the process should be maximized. Starting from the intuitive concepts of bias and prevalence, we perform an analysis of common evaluation metrics. The analysis helps us understand the metrics' underlying properties, and how they align with expectations as found expressed in papers. Then we reflect on the practical situation in the field, and survey evaluation practice in recent shared tasks. We find that metric selection is often not supported with convincing arguments, an issue that can make a system ranking seem arbitrary. Our work aims at providing overview and guidance for more informed and transparent metric selection, fostering meaningful evaluation.

Related papers

• Ranking evaluation metrics from a group-theoretic perspective [5.333192842860574]
  We show instances resulting in inconsistent evaluations, sources of potential mistrust in commonly used metrics. Our analysis sheds light on ranking evaluation metrics, highlighting that inconsistent evaluations should not be seen as a source of mistrust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T09:06:58Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Is Reference Necessary in the Evaluation of NLG Systems? When and Where? [58.52957222172377]
  We show that reference-free metrics exhibit a higher correlation with human judgment and greater sensitivity to deficiencies in language quality. Our study can provide insight into the appropriate application of automatic metrics and the impact of metric choice on evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T10:31:11Z)
• 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)
• Evaluation of FEM and MLFEM AI-explainers in Image Classification tasks with reference-based and no-reference metrics [0.0]
  We remind recently proposed post-hoc explainers FEM and MLFEM which have been designed for explanations of CNNs in image and video classification tasks. We propose their evaluation with reference-based and no-reference metrics. As a no-reference metric we use "stability" metric, proposed by Alvarez-Melis and Jaakkola.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-02T14:55:31Z)
• Classification Performance Metric Elicitation and its Applications [5.5637552942511155]
  Despite its practical interest, there is limited formal guidance on how to select metrics for machine learning applications. This thesis outlines metric elicitation as a principled framework for selecting the performance metric that best reflects implicit user preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-19T03:57:17Z)
• 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)
• On Quantitative Evaluations of Counterfactuals [88.42660013773647]
  This paper consolidates work on evaluating visual counterfactual examples through an analysis and experiments. We find that while most metrics behave as intended for sufficiently simple datasets, some fail to tell the difference between good and bad counterfactuals when the complexity increases. We propose two new metrics, the Label Variation Score and the Oracle score, which are both less vulnerable to such tiny changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-30T05:00:36Z)
• Estimation of Fair Ranking Metrics with Incomplete Judgments [70.37717864975387]
  We propose a sampling strategy and estimation technique for four fair ranking metrics. We formulate a robust and unbiased estimator which can operate even with very limited number of labeled items.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-11T10:57:00Z)
• Quantitative Evaluations on Saliency Methods: An Experimental Study [6.290238942982972]
  We briefly summarize the status quo of the metrics, including faithfulness, localization, false-positives, sensitivity check, and stability. We conclude that among all the methods we compare, no single explanation method dominates others in all metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-31T14:13:30Z)

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.