Evaluating Multimedia Systems
Before diving into the specifics of different types of multimedia systems, we must first know how to evaluate them. This chapter covers the evaluation of supervised MMA tasks using hold out evaluation, cross-validation, and several evaluation metrics, and the evaluation of information retrieval tasks.
We evaluate multimedia systems to objectively determine how well they perform - “just playing” with a system (and its parameters) isn’t good enough.
- Evaluation makes it possible to compare how a new algorithm performs compared to other algorithms - it is the only way to know whether the new algorithm is state of the art.
Evaluating Supervised MMA Tasks
In many supervised multimedia analysis and machine learning tasks, such as classification, there is a training step.
- In this training step, the system is fed some example inputs with output labels.
- The evaluation step then often involves a set of test cases and the corresponding ground truth.
These two settings (training and evaluation) are analogous, and require the same data: labeled inputs. It’s also very important that the training and evaluation sets are representative of each other, to avoid creating a system that is not optimized for the data it’s going to be evaluated on.
So the “trick” to evaluating multimedia systems in a supervised setting is in deciding how to split the underlying dataset.
Hold-Out Evaluation
Hold-out evaluation involves training your system on one part of the data and evaluating it on another part.
- Randomly divide the data set into a mutually exclusive training set and a testing set.
- The fraction of data in the training set is called the training factor. A training factor of
0.8
(common) means 80% of the data is in the training set. - Never look at the testing set before it’s time to evaluate
- The fraction of data in the training set is called the training factor. A training factor of
- Train the system using the training set.
- Run the testing set through the system and calculate an evaluation metric on the results.
Cross-Validation
Repeat steps 1 - 3 for hold-out evaluation several times, and average the values for the evaluation metric to get the final evaluation.
Evaluation Metrics
Most evaluation metrics are calculated from how much of the testing data labels fall into the following categories:
- True positive (TP): The item was labeled
X
, and the ground truth for the item was alsoX
. - False positive (FP): The item was labeled
X
, but the ground truth for the item was something other thanX
. - True negative (TN): The item was not labeled
X
, and the ground truth for the item was also notX
. - False negative (FN): The item was not labeled
X
, but the ground truth for the item wasX
.
We can then calculate any of the following metrics:
- Accuracy:
accuracy = (TP + TN) / (TP + FP + TN + FN)
- “How often is the classifier correct?”
- Precision:
precision = (TP) / (TP + FP)
- “What fraction of the instances retrieved by the classifier are relevant?”
- Recall:
recall = (TP) / (TP + FN)
- “What fraction of the relevant instances did the classifier retrieve?”
It is up to the system designer (you!) to decide what metrics are most important to the system. Make sure to decide (and document!) this decision before running tests.
Evaluating Unsupervised MMA Tasks
Evaluating unsupervised multimedia analysis tasks, such as a clustering or a segmentation, are out of scope for TI2716-C.
Evaluating Information Retrieval Systems
Information retrieval systems have a fairly static, large document collection, but do not really have the concept of a training set.
Instead, we can write several queries and define the relevant items for those queries. We can then evaluate these queries by comparing their retrieved items to the relevant items. We define the precision and recall “at N”:
- Precision at N:
P@N = | { retrieved docs } ∩ { relevant docs } | / | { retrieved docs } |
- “What fraction of the retrieved documents is relevant?”
- Recall at N:
R@N = | { retrieved docs } ∩ { relevant docs } | / | { relevant docs } |
- “What fraction of the relevant documents were retrieved?”
[ Home ]