Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

What do different evaluation metrics tell us about saliency models?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1604.03605 v2 pith:AHTILGI7 submitted 2016-04-12 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords saliencyevaluationmetricmetricsmodelsdifferentfalseproperties
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Learning to See Like Humans: Gaze-Aligned Cycling Safety Prediction

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools