Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
28 lines (16 loc) · 4.1 KB

Evaluation Metrics.md

File metadata and controls

28 lines (16 loc) · 4.1 KB

In image captioning, the goal is to generate textual descriptions that accurately describe the content of an image. To evaluate the performance of image captioning models, various evaluation metrics are used to measure how well the generated captions match the ground truth (i.e., reference captions provided by humans). Here are some common evaluation metrics used in image captioning:

  1. BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy): BLEU is one of the most widely used metrics for evaluating machine-generated text, including image captions. It measures the n-gram overlap between the generated caption and the reference captions. BLEU score ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating better performance.

  2. METEOR (Metric for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit ORdering): METEOR is another metric that takes into account precision, recall, stemming, synonymy, and word order. It often provides a more comprehensive evaluation compared to BLEU.

  3. ROUGE (Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation): ROUGE is a family of metrics commonly used for evaluating machine-generated text. It focuses on the overlap of n-grams and measures precision, recall, and F1-score.

  4. CIDEr (Consensus-based Image Description Evaluation): CIDEr is designed to capture consensus between multiple reference captions. It considers the similarity of n-grams in the generated caption and reference captions, giving more importance to rare words and phrases.

  5. SPICE (Semantic Propositional Image Caption Evaluation): SPICE is a metric that assesses the semantic content of captions by parsing them into semantic propositions and measuring the overlap between the generated and reference propositions.

  6. BLEU-4: BLEU-4 is a variation of BLEU that specifically measures the overlap of 4-grams (four-word sequences) between the generated caption and reference captions. It is commonly used in image captioning evaluations.

  7. METEOR-Long: METEOR-Long is an extension of METEOR that takes into account longer phrases and does not penalize models for generating longer captions.

  8. WER (Word Error Rate): WER measures the number of word-level substitutions, insertions, and deletions required to align the generated caption with a reference caption. Lower WER values indicate better performance.

  9. TER (Translation Edit Rate): TER is similar to WER but takes into account word order and structural differences between the generated and reference captions.

  10. Human Evaluation: In addition to automated metrics, human evaluation is often conducted, where human annotators assess the quality of generated captions for factors like relevance, fluency, and informativeness. Common human evaluation methods include pairwise comparison and Likert scale ratings

  11. BERTScore

    • It measures the similarity between the predicted captions and the reference captions using contextualized word embeddings. It leverages a pre-trained BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) model to encode the captions into dense vector representations. By comparing the embeddings of the predicted and reference captions, BERTScore calculates a similarity score that reflects the quality of the generated captions.
    • The advantage of BERTScore is that it considers both the precision and recall of the predicted captions, taking into account the overlapping words and their order. This makes it a more comprehensive evaluation metric compared to traditional metrics like BLEU or METEOR, which only focus on exact word matches.
    • When using BERTScore for image captioning evaluation, the predicted captions are compared against the ground truth reference captions. The resulting score provides a quantitative measure of how well the generated captions align with the reference captions in terms of semantic similarity.
    • By incorporating BERTScore as an evaluation metric in image captioning, researchers and practitioners can obtain a more nuanced understanding of the quality and relevance of the generated captions, helping to drive improvements in caption generation models.