Medical Lay Language Generation (MLLG) plays a vital role in improving the accessibility of complex scientific content for broader audiences. Recent literature to MLLG commonly employ parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods such as LowRank Adaptation (LoRA) to fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) using paired expert-lay language datasets. However, LoRA struggles with the challenges posed by multi-source heterogeneous MLLG datasets. Specifically, through a series of exploratory experiments, we reveal that standard LoRA fail to meet the requirement for semantic fidelity and diverse lay-style generation in MLLG task. To address these limitations, we propose Magical, an asymmetric LoRA architecture tailored for MLLG under heterogeneous data scenarios. Magical employs a shared matrix Afor abstractive summarization, along with multiple isolated matrices B for diverse lay-style generation. To preserve semantic fidelity during the lay language generation process, Magical introduces a Semantic Invariance Constraint to mitigate semantic subspace shifts on matrix A. Furthermore, to better adapt to diverse lay-style generation, Magical incorporates the Recommendation-guided Switch, an externally interface to prompt the LLM to switch between different matrices B. Experimental results on three real-world lay language generation datasets demonstrate that Magical consistently outperforms prompt-based methods, vanilla LoRA, and its recent variants, while also reducing trainable parameters by 31.66%.

Test-time adaptation (TTA) methods have gained significant attention for enhancing the performance of vision-language models (VLMs) such as CLIP during inference, without requiring additional labeled data. However, current TTA researches generally suffer from major limitations such as duplication of baseline results, limited evaluation metrics, inconsistent experimental settings, and insufficient analysis. These problems hinder fair comparisons between TTA methods and make it difficult to assess their practical strengths and weaknesses. To address these challenges, we introduce TTA-VLM, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating TTA methods on VLMs. Our benchmark implements 8 episodic TTA and 7 online TTA methods within a unified and reproducible framework, and evaluates them across 15 widely used datasets. Unlike prior studies focused solely on CLIP, we extend the evaluation to SigLIP--a model trained with a Sigmoid loss--and include training-time tuning methods such as CoOp, MaPLe, and TeCoA to assess generality. Beyond classification accuracy, TTA-VLM incorporates various evaluation metrics, including robustness, calibration, out-of-distribution detection, and stability, enabling a more holistic assessment of TTA methods. Through extensive experiments, we find that 1) existing TTA methods produce limited gains compared to the previous pioneering work; 2) current TTA methods exhibit poor collaboration with training-time fine-tuning methods; 3) accuracy gains frequently come at the cost of reduced model trustworthiness. We release TTA-VLM to provide fair comparison and comprehensive evaluation of TTA methods for VLMs, and we hope it encourages the community to develop more reliable and generalizable TTA strategies.

Widely adopted evaluation metrics for sparse-view CT reconstruction, such as Structural Similarity Index Measure and Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio, prioritize pixel-wise fidelity but often fail to capture the completeness of critical anatomical structures, particularly small or thin regions that are easily missed. To address this limitation, we propose a suite of novel anatomy-aware evaluation metrics designed to assess structural completeness across anatomical structures, including large organs, small organs, intestines, and vessels. Building on these metrics, we introduce CARE, a Completeness-Aware Reconstruction Enhancement framework that incorporates structural penalties during training to encourage anatomical preservation of significant structures. CARE is model-agnostic and can be seamlessly integrated into analytical, implicit, and generative methods.

This work studies the evaluation of explaining graph neural networks (GNNs), which is crucial to the credibility of post-hoc explainability in practical usage. Conventional evaluation metrics, and even explanation methods -- which mainly follow the paradigm of feeding the explanatory subgraph to the model and measuring output difference -- mostly suffer from the notorious out-of-distribution (OOD) issue. Hence, in this work, we endeavor to confront this issue by introducing a novel evaluation metric, termed OOD-resistant Adversarial Robustness (OAR). Specifically, we draw inspiration from adversarial robustness and evaluate post-hoc explanation subgraphs by calculating their robustness under attack. On top of that, an elaborate OOD reweighting block is inserted into the pipeline to confine the evaluation process to the original data distribution. For applications involving large datasets, we further devise a Simplified version of OAR (SimOAR), which achieves a significant improvement in computational efficiency at the cost of a small amount of performance.

We propose a robust and reliable evaluation metric for generative models called Topological Precision and Recall (TopP&R, pronounced "topper"), which systematically estimates supports by retaining only topologically and statistically significant features with a certain level of confidence. Existing metrics, such as Inception Score (IS), Fréchet Inception Distance (FID), and various Precision and Recall(P&R) variants, rely heavily on support estimates derived from sample features. However, the reliability of these estimates has been overlooked, even though the quality of the evaluation hinges entirely on their accuracy. In this paper, we demonstrate that current methods not only fail to accurately assess sample quality when support estimation is unreliable, but also yield inconsistent results. In contrast, TopP&R reliably evaluates the sample quality and ensures statistical consistency in its results. Our theoretical and experimental findings reveal that TopP&R provides a robust evaluation, accurately capturing the true trend of change in samples, even in the presence of outliers and non-independent and identically distributed (Non-IID) perturbations where other methods result in inaccurate support estimations. To our knowledge, TopP&Ris the first evaluation metric specifically focused on the robust estimation of supports, offering statistical consistency under noise conditions.

While Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques have been widely studied to explain predictions made by deep neural networks, the way to evaluate the faithfulness of explanation results remains challenging, due to the heterogeneity of explanations for various models and the lack of ground-truth explanations. This paper introduces an XAI benchmark named M4, which allows evaluating various input feature attribution methods using the same set of faithfulness metrics across multiple data modalities (images and texts) and network structures (ResNets, MobileNets, Transformers). A taxonomy for the metrics has been proposed as well. We first categorize commonly used XAI evaluation metrics into three groups based on the ground truth they require. We then implement classic and state-of-the-art feature attribution methods using InterpretDL and conduct extensive experiments to compare methods and gain insights. Extensive experiments have been conducted to provide holistic evaluations as benchmark baselines. Several interesting observations are made for designing attribution algorithms.