EG-PCS integrates gaze data into a pairwise vision-transformer pipeline for cycling safety prediction, yielding attention maps closer to human fixations while preserving ranking performance.
What do different evaluation metrics tell us about saliency models?
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
How best to evaluate a saliency model's ability to predict where humans look in images is an open research question. The choice of evaluation metric depends on how saliency is defined and how the ground truth is represented. Metrics differ in how they rank saliency models, and this results from how false positives and false negatives are treated, whether viewing biases are accounted for, whether spatial deviations are factored in, and how the saliency maps are pre-processed. In this paper, we provide an analysis of 8 different evaluation metrics and their properties. With the help of systematic experiments and visualizations of metric computations, we add interpretability to saliency scores and more transparency to the evaluation of saliency models. Building off the differences in metric properties and behaviors, we make recommendations for metric selections under specific assumptions and for specific applications.
fields
cs.CV 1years
2026 1verdicts
UNVERDICTED 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Learning to See Like Humans: Gaze-Aligned Cycling Safety Prediction
EG-PCS integrates gaze data into a pairwise vision-transformer pipeline for cycling safety prediction, yielding attention maps closer to human fixations while preserving ranking performance.