Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the discrepancies between pairwise ranking metrics and the actual assignment objectives in multi-view object association tasks. The authors demonstrate that traditional metrics like Average Precision (AP) and False Positive Rate at 95% (FPR-95) can yield misleading evaluations of model performance, even when assignments are correct, and propose a Sinkhorn-based normalization technique to address this issue. Their empirical validation reveals that optimizing these metrics can enhance ranking scores without improving the fundamental assignment accuracy, highlighting the critical need for alignment between evaluation metrics and task objectives.
Pairwise ranking metrics can mislead model evaluation, with high scores not guaranteeing correct object assignments in multi-view tasks.
Multi-view object association is an important computer vision problem that underlies many multi-camera perception tasks. While this task is naturally formulated as a constrained one-to-one matching problem, recent works heavily rely on pairwise ranking metrics like AP and FPR-95 for model evaluation. We highlight a fundamental mismatch between these metrics and the actual assignment objective. Theoretically, we show that AP and FPR-95 can be imperfect even when the assignment is already correct, and that Sinkhorn-based normalization can make them perfect. Conversely, optimal pairwise ranking can still lead to incorrect assignments. We validate this mismatch in practice by using our Sinkhorn-based normalization as a controlled post-processing stress test. We show that optimizing just a few post-processing parameters significantly boosts AP and FPR-95 without corresponding improvements in assignment-level metrics such as ACC and IPAA.