Papers › A Closer Look at Classification Evaluation Metrics and a Critical Reflection of Common...

A Closer Look at Classification Evaluation Metrics and a Critical Reflection of Common Evaluation Practice

25 Apr 2024arXiv:2404.16958archive 2025-07-28

Juri Opitz

Classification systems are evaluated in a countless number of papers. However, we find that evaluation practice is often nebulous. Frequently, metrics are selected without arguments, and blurry terminology invites misconceptions. For instance, many works use so-called 'macro' metrics to rank systems (e.g., 'macro F1') but do not clearly specify what they would expect from such a `macro' metric. This is problematic, since picking a metric can affect research findings, and thus any clarity in the process should be maximized. Starting from the intuitive concepts of bias and prevalence, we perform an analysis of common evaluation metrics. The analysis helps us understand the metrics' underlying properties, and how they align with expectations as found expressed in papers. Then we reflect on the practical situation in the field, and survey evaluation practice in recent shared tasks. We find that metric selection is often not supported with convincing arguments, an issue that can make a system ranking seem arbitrary. Our work aims at providing overview and guidance for more informed and transparent metric selection, fostering meaningful evaluation.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

flipz357/metric-csv officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Misconceptions

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

ALIGN

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections