Evaluation Metrics

In recent years, several advances have been observed in Deep Learning with surprising results. Models in this area have been increasingly used in numerous applications, including those sensitive to human life, which require clear explanations and justifications. Various explainability methods have been proposed, but not many metrics to evaluate these methods. The most commonly used metric is the Intersection over Union (IoU). However, due to the characteristics of the results of the explainability methods, called saliency maps, which do not have a known shape, we hypothesise that there must be a better metric that allows one to find an explainability method that produces results that best resemble the human perception. We propose using different metrics to assess the similarity between human perception and the explanation saliency maps to find a better metric. An investigation was conducted employing a subset of the Chihuahuas images from ImageNet dataset. Several CAM-based explainability methods were used to generate saliency maps for each chihuahua image. Alignment was measured by applying distance metrics between the bounding box of human annotations and the saliency maps produced by each explainability method. Rankings of the best saliency maps were created using the results of the distance metrics and compared to the ranking obtained using people's choice, collected through crowdsourcing, of the best explanation saliency maps for each selected image. Comparison between rankings was performed using the Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) metric. The results indicate the feasibility of our method to find the explainability method that best resembles human perception. In our experiments, the two metrics that best resemble human perception corresponded to Manhattan and Correlation. Besides, the best explainability methods regarding human perception were LayerCAM, Score-CAM, and IS-CAM.

Speech technologies are deployed in high-stakes settings, yet fairness concerns remain fragmented across tasks and disciplines. Existing surveys either adopt a general machine-learning perspective that overlooks speech-specific properties or focus on a single task, missing failure patterns shared across the speech domain. Synthesizing over 400 studies spanning generation and perception tasks and emerging speech-language models, this survey presents a unified framework that links formal fairness definitions to evaluation, diagnosis, and mitigation. We formalize seven fairness definitions adapted to the speech modality and organize the field's conceptual evolution through three paradigms: Robustness, Representation, and Governance. We then ground evaluation metrics in the mathematical cores of these definitions and offer a decision tree for metric selection. We diagnose bias sources along the speech processing pipeline, surfacing speech-specific mechanisms such as channel bias as a demographic proxy and annotation subjectivity in emotion labels. We systematize mitigation strategies across four intervention stages, mapping each to the diagnosed sources. Finally, we identify open challenges and propose directions for future research.

We present a framework for migrating production Large Language Model (LLM) based systems when the underlying model reaches end-of-life or requires replacement. The key contribution is a Bayesian statistical approach that calibrates automated evaluation metrics against human judgments, enabling confident model comparison even with limited manual evaluation data. We demonstrate this framework on a commercial question-answering system serving 5.3M monthly interactions across six global regions; evaluating correctness, refusal behavior, and stylistic adherence to successfully identify suitable replacement models. The framework is broadly applicable to any enterprise deploying LLM-based products, providing a principled, reproducible methodology for model migration that balances quality assurance with evaluation efficiency. This is a capability increasingly essential as the LLM ecosystem continues to evolve rapidly and organizations manage portfolios of AI-powered services across multiple models, regions, and use cases.

Source Code Plagiarism Detection (SCPD) plays an important role in maintaining fairness and academic integrity in software engineering education. Code Evaluation Metrics (CEMs) are developed for assessing code generation tasks. However, it remains unclear whether such metrics can reliably detect plagiarism across different levels of modification (L1-L6), increasing in complexity. In this paper, we perform a comparative empirical study using two open-source labelled datasets, ConPlag (raw and template-free versions) and IRPlag. We evaluate five CEMs, namely CodeBLEU, CrystalBLEU, RUBY, Tree Structured Edit Distance (TSED), and CodeBERTScore. The performance is evaluated using threshold-free ranking-based measures to assess overall, per dataset, and per-level plagiarism performance. The results are compared against state-of-the-art (SOTA) Source Code Plagiarism Detection Tools (SCPDTs), JPlag and Dolos. Our findings show that without preprocessing, Dolos achieves the highest overall ranking performance, while among the individual metrics, CrystalBLEU, CodeBLEU, and RUBY outperform JPlag. Performance is strongest at L1 and drops from L4 onward, while CrystalBLEU remains competitive on L6. With preprocessing, CrystalBLEU surpasses Dolos overall. Per dataset, Dolos achieved the best ranking on the ConPlag raw dataset, while CrystalBLEU was the best-performing metric on the remaining datasets. At the plagiarism levels, Dolos remains strongest on L4, while Crystal-BLEU leads most of the remaining difficult levels. These results indicate that CEMs are comparable to dedicated tools in terms of ranking metrics.

Recent advances in summary evaluation are based on model-based metrics to assess quality dimensions, such as completeness, conciseness, and faithfulness. However, these methods often require large language models, and predicted scores are frequently miscalibrated, limiting their reliability. Moreover, evaluating the average quality across different summaries for a single document typically requires access to multiple reference summaries. Here, we propose a general framework that generates individual and average proxy scores without relying on reference summaries, human annotations, or expensive model-based metrics. We also propose group isotonic regression binning (GIRB), a calibration method that adjusts the raw predictions to better align with ground-truth evaluation metrics. While we focus on continuous-value scenarios, such as summarization, the method is applicable to discrete-value tasks, such as question answering. Experiments on seven datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms existing baselines.

While deep learning systems are becoming increasingly prevalent in medical image analysis, their vulnerabilities to adversarial perturbations raise serious concerns for clinical deployment. These vulnerability evaluations largely rely on Attack Success Rate (ASR), a binary metric that indicates solely whether an attack is successful. However, the ASR metric does not account for other factors, such as perturbation strength, perceptual image quality, and cross-architecture attack transferability, and therefore, the interpretation is incomplete. This gap requires consideration, as complex, large-scale deep learning systems, including Vision Transformers (ViTs), are increasingly challenging the dominance of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). These architectures learn differently, and it is unclear whether a single metric, e.g., ASR, can effectively capture adversarial behavior. To address this, we perform a systematic empirical study on four medical image datasets: PathMNIST, DermaMNIST, RetinaMNIST, and CheXpert. We evaluate seven models (VGG-16, ResNet-50, DenseNet-121, Inception-v3, DeiT, Swin Transformer, and ViT-B/16) against seven attack methods at five perturbation budgets, measuring ASR, Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM), and $L_2$ perturbation magnitude. Our findings show a consistent pattern: perceptual and distortion metrics are strongly associated with one another and exhibit minimal correlation with ASR. This applies to both CNNs and ViTs. The results demonstrate that ASR alone is an inadequate indicator of adversarial robustness and transferability. Consequently, we argue that a thorough assessment of adversarial risk in medical AI necessitates multi-metric frameworks that encompass not only the attack efficacy but also its methodology and associated overheads.

The evaluation of fairness in machine learning systems has become a central concern in high-stakes applications, including biometric recognition, healthcare decision-making, and automated risk assessment. Existing approaches typically rely on a small number of fairness metrics to assess model behaviour across group partitions, implicitly assuming that these metrics provide consistent and reliable conclusions. However, different fairness metrics capture distinct statistical properties of model performance and may therefore produce conflicting assessments when applied to the same system. In this work, we investigate the consistency of fairness evaluation by conducting a systematic multi-metric analysis of demographic bias in machine learning models. Using face recognition as a controlled experimental setting, we evaluate model performance across multiple group partitions under a range of commonly used fairness metrics, including error-rate disparities and performance-based measures. Our results demonstrate that fairness assessments can vary significantly depending on the choice of metrics, leading to contradictory conclusions regarding model bias. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce the Fairness Disagreement Index (FDI), a measure designed to capture the degree of inconsistency across fairness metrics. We further show that disagreement remains high across thresholds and model configurations. These findings highlight a critical limitation in current fairness evaluation practices and suggest that single-metric reporting is insufficient for reliable bias assessment.

Music Structure Analysis (MSA) aims to uncover the high-level organization of musical pieces. State-of-the-art methods are often based on supervised deep learning, but these methods are bottlenecked by the need for heavily annotated data and inherent structural ambiguities. In this paper, we propose an unsupervised evaluation of nine open-source, generic pre-trained deep audio models, on MSA. For each model, we extract barwise embeddings and segment them using three unsupervised segmentation algorithms (Foote's checkerboard kernels, spectral clustering, and Correlation Block-Matching (CBM)), focusing exclusively on boundary retrieval. Our results demonstrate that modern, generic deep embeddings generally outperform traditional spectrogram-based baselines, but not systematically. Furthermore, our unsupervised boundary estimation methodology generally yields stronger performance than recent linear probing baselines. Among the evaluated techniques, the CBM algorithm consistently emerges as the most effective downstream segmentation method. Finally, we highlight the artificial inflation of standard evaluation metrics and advocate for the systematic adoption of trimming'', or even double trimming'' annotations to establish more rigorous MSA evaluation standards.

Evaluation of Image Quality Assessment (IQA) models has long been dominated by global correlation metrics, such as Pearson Linear Correlation Coefficient (PLCC) and Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient (SRCC). While widely adopted, these metrics reduce performance to a single scalar, failing to capture how ranking consistency varies across the local quality spectrum. For example, two IQA models may achieve identical SRCC values, yet one ranks high-quality images (related to high Mean Opinion Score, MOS) more reliably, while the other better discriminates image pairs with small quality/MOS differences (related to $|Δ$MOS$|$). Such complementary behaviors are invisible under global metrics. Moreover, SRCC and PLCC are sensitive to test-sample quality distributions, yielding unstable comparisons across test sets. To address these limitations, we propose \textbf{Granularity-Modulated Correlation (GMC)}, which provides a structured, fine-grained analysis of IQA performance. GMC includes: (1) a \textbf{Granularity Modulator} that applies Gaussian-weighted correlations conditioned on absolute MOS values and pairwise MOS differences ($|Δ$MOS$|$) to examine local performance variations, and (2) a \textbf{Distribution Regulator} that regularizes correlations to mitigate biases from non-uniform quality distributions. The resulting \textbf{correlation surface} maps correlation values as a joint function of MOS and $|Δ$MOS$|$, providing a 3D representation of IQA performance. Experiments on standard benchmarks show that GMC reveals performance characteristics invisible to scalar metrics, offering a more informative and reliable paradigm for analyzing, comparing, and deploying IQA models. Codes are available at https://github.com/Dniaaa/GMC.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has proven effective in enhancing large language models by encouraging step-by-step intermediate reasoning, and recent advances have extended this paradigm to Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). In the medical domain, where diagnostic decisions depend on nuanced visual cues and sequential reasoning, CoT aligns naturally with clinical thinking processes. However, current benchmarks for medical image understanding generally focus on the final answer while ignoring the reasoning path. Such opaque reasoning processes lack reliable bases for judgment, making it difficult to assist doctors in diagnosis. To address this gap, we introduce a new M3CoTBench benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the correctness, efficiency, impact, and consistency of CoT reasoning in medical image understanding. M3CoTBench features 1) a diverse, multi-level difficulty dataset covering 24 examination types, 2) 13 varying-difficulty tasks, 3) a suite of CoT-specific evaluation metrics (correctness, efficiency, impact, and consistency) tailored to clinical reasoning, and 4) a performance analysis of multiple MLLMs. M3CoTBench systematically evaluates CoT reasoning across diverse medical imaging tasks, revealing current limitations of MLLMs in generating reliable and clinically interpretable reasoning, and aims to foster the development of transparent, trustworthy, and diagnostically accurate AI systems for healthcare. Project page at https://juntaojianggavin.github.io/projects/M3CoTBench/.

Expert domain writing, such as scientific writing, typically demands extensive domain knowledge. Although large language models (LLMs) show promising potential in this task, evaluating the quality of automatically generated scientific writing is a crucial open issue, as it requires knowledge of domain-specific criteria and the ability to discern expert preferences. Conventional automatic evaluation metrics and LLM-as-a-judge systems, primarily designed for mainstream NLP tasks, are insufficient to grasp expert preferences and domain-specific quality standards. To address this gap and support realistic human-AI collaborative writing, we focus on related work generation, one of the most challenging scientific tasks, as an exemplar. We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences. GREP decomposes the evaluation into smaller fine-grained dimensions. This localized evaluation is further augmented with contrastive examples to provide detailed contextual guidance for the evaluation dimensions. Empirical investigation reveals that GREP is able to assess the quality of related work sections in a much more robust manner compared to standard LLM judges, reflects natural scenarios of scientific writing, and bears a strong correlation with the assessment of human experts. We also observe that generations from state-of-the-art LLMs struggle to satisfy validation constraints of a suitable related work section.

With the surge of large language models (LLMs) and their ability to produce customized output, style-personalized text generation--"write like me"--has become a rapidly growing area of interest. However, style personalization is highly specific, relative to every user, and depends strongly on the pragmatic context, which makes it uniquely challenging. Although prior research has introduced benchmarks and metrics for this area, they tend to be non-standardized and have known limitations (e.g., poor correlation with human subjects). LLMs have been found to not capture author-specific style well, it follows that the metrics themselves must be scrutinized carefully. In this work we critically examine the effectiveness of the most common metrics used in the field, such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLMs-as-judges. We evaluate these metrics using our proposed style discrimination benchmark, which spans eight diverse writing tasks across three evaluation settings: domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized vs non-personalized discrimination. We find strong evidence that employing ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics consistently outperforms single-evaluator methods, and conclude by providing guidance on how to reliably assess style-personalized text generation.

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly improved medical screening accuracy, particularly in cancer detection and risk assessment. However, traditional classification metrics often fail to account for imbalanced data, varying performance across cohorts, and patient-level inconsistencies, leading to biased evaluations. We propose the cohort-attention evaluation metrics for tied data (CAT). CAT introduces patient-level assessment, entropy-based distribution weighting, and cohort-weighted sensitivity and specificity. Key metrics like CAT Sensitivity, CAT Specificity, and CAT Mean ensure balanced and fair evaluation across diverse populations. This approach enhances predictive reliability, fairness, and interpretability, providing a robust evaluation method for AI-driven medical screening models.

In the current practices of machine learning, the evaluation of forecasts has become a cornerstone of scientific progress. A multitude of evaluation metrics have been suggested and used to qualify "good" forecasts. What do those metrics share? How are they related? In this work, we use a protocol borrowed from game-theoretic probability to show that a large part of evaluation metrics can be viewed as averaged outcomes of fair gambles. Intuitively, a fair gambler is one which a forecaster would expect to fail. Hence, the gambler's ability to gain disproves the quality of the forecast. Standard evaluation metrics are then variants of choices of such fair gambles. In particular, this choice is structured along two dimensions, one of which separates calibration-type and regret-type metrics. In particular, this framework sheds light on the relationship of calibration and regret showing a theoretical equivalence in their ability to evaluate when being scaled appropriately, but the incomparability of obtained scores.

Modern artificial intelligence is supported by machine learning models (e.g., foundation models) that are pretrained on a massive data corpus and then adapted to solve a variety of downstream tasks. To summarize performance across multiple tasks, evaluation metrics are often aggregated into a summary metric, e.g., average accuracy across 10 question-answering tasks. When aggregating evaluation metrics, it is useful to incorporate uncertainty in the aggregate metric in order to gain a more realistic understanding of model performance. Our objective in this work is to demonstrate how statistical methodology can be used for quantifying uncertainty in metrics that have been aggregated across multiple tasks. The methods we emphasize are bootstrapping, Bayesian hierarchical (i.e., multilevel) modeling, and the visualization of task weightings that consider standard errors. These techniques reveal insights such as the dominance of a specific model for certain types of tasks despite an overall poor performance. We use a popular ML benchmark, the Visual Task Adaptation Benchmark (VTAB), to demonstrate the usefulness of our approaches.