Popular metrics used for evaluating image captioning systems, such as BLEU and CIDEr, provide a single score to gauge the system’s overall effectiveness. This score is often not informative enough to indicate what specific errors are made by a given system. In this study, we present a fine-grained evaluation method REO for automatically measuring the performance of image captioning systems. REO assesses the quality of captions from three perspectives: 1) Relevance to the ground truth, 2) Extraness of the content that is irrelevant to the ground truth, and 3) Omission of the elements in the images and human references. Experiments on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method achieves a higher consistency with human judgments and provides more intuitive evaluation results than alternative metrics.
This paper presents a new metric called TIGEr for the automatic evaluation of image captioning systems. Popular metrics, such as BLEU and CIDEr, are based solely on text matching between reference captions and machine-generated captions, potentially leading to biased evaluations because references may not fully cover the image content and natural language is inherently ambiguous. Building upon a machine-learned text-image grounding model, TIGEr allows to evaluate caption quality not only based on how well a caption represents image content, but also on how well machine-generated captions match human-generated captions. Our empirical tests show that TIGEr has a higher consistency with human judgments than alternative existing metrics. We also comprehensively assess the metric’s effectiveness in caption evaluation by measuring the correlation between human judgments and metric scores.
We present a simple, rule-based method for extracting entity networks from the abstracts of scientific literature. By taking advantage of selected syntactic features of constituent parsing trees, our method automatically extracts and constructs graphs in which nodes represent text-based entities (in this case, noun phrases) and their relationships (in this case, verb phrases or preposition phrases). We use two benchmark datasets for evaluation and compare with previously presented results for these data. Our evaluation results show that the proposed method leads to accuracy rates that are comparable to or exceed the results achieved with state-of-the-art, learning-based methods in several cases.
We extend classic review mining work by building a binary classifier that predicts whether a review of a documentary film was written by an expert or a layman with 90.70% accuracy (F1 score), and compare the characteristics of the predicted classes. A variety of standard lexical and syntactic features was used for this supervised learning task. Our results suggest that experts write comparatively lengthier and more detailed reviews that feature more complex grammar and a higher diversity in their vocabulary. Layman reviews are more subjective and contextualized in peoples’ everyday lives. Our error analysis shows that laymen are about twice as likely to be mistaken as experts than vice versa. We argue that the type of author might be a useful new feature for improving the accuracy of predicting the rating, helpfulness and authenticity of reviews. Finally, the outcomes of this work might help researchers and practitioners in the field of impact assessment to gain a more fine-grained understanding of the perception of different types of media consumers and reviewers of a topic, genre or information product.